Poll Position: If Obamacare mandate falls, what goes with it?
During three days of oral arguments about Obamacare at the Supreme Court this week, legal analysts were at pains to predict which way each justice was leaning based on his or her line of questioning. For all but the most experienced court watchers, this seems like an exercise in futility: Justices may be just as likely to question an attorney’s point in the hopes of eliciting a stronger case for it as they are to seek to poke holes in it. I’ll just stick to the prediction I, like many others, made when the first legal challenges were filed: This case will come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote, in what most likely will be a 5-4 decision.
If the mandate is struck down, how much of the rest of Obamacare should go with it?
- All of it (232 Votes)
- Nothing else (109 Votes)
- Only those parts the administration argued for (e.g., community rating and pre-existing conditions) (28 Votes)
Total Voters: 369
Loading ...Much of the analysis during Wednesday’s arguments focused on the justices’ debate about “severability”: how much of the law ought to survive if the individual mandate is struck down. The 11th Circuit here in Atlanta decided to strike down only the mandate and keep all else intact. Attorneys for the states challenging the law argued none of the law can stand if the mandate falls, because it was the central component of the law: The other provisions don’t work without he mandate, and Congress wouldn’t have passed the law without it. The government’s attorneys argued that only a couple of other provisions — chiefly, the ones covering pre-existing conditions and “community rating,” which holds that insurers can’t charge different premiums based on certain behaviors — should fall in that case because they would severely distort the insurance market absent the mandate, while the rest should stand. (Neither side took the 11th Circuit’s position, so the Supreme Court had to assign another attorney to argue that position.)
Some analysts seemed to think the line of questioning itself, predicated on the dismissal of the mandate, indicated the mandate was in trouble. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case: The only way to argue about severability is to assume the mandate is struck down. If it’s not, the point is moot, but the justices had to hear arguments about what to do in the event they do strike it down.
An interesting argument centered on the idea of judicial restraint: Does it indicate more restraint to leave as much of the law intact as possible, as the liberal justices argued? Or would the court display more restraint to strike it down in total — thereby avoiding potentially changing Congress’ intent — and let Congress start over with a blank canvas, as the conservative justices argued?
That’s a philosophical point, and there are practical considerations here as well. Would Obamacare minus only the mandate be workable? Even if community rating and pre-existing conditions provisions also fall, would other elements of the law such as the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion still make sense? Is Congress more likely to act if it has to try to fix a broken law, or if it gets to start over?
So, here’s this week’s Poll Position: If the mandate is struck down, how much of the rest of Obamacare should the justices throw out with it? Note that I am not asking you to predict what the court will do, but rather what you think should be done.
See the choices and vote in the nearby poll and explain your thoughts in the comments thread.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
171 comments Add your comment
DawgDad
March 30th, 2012
2:26 pm
“Most Europeans have a far better standard of living than Americans. They don’t pay for college and they get free health care.”
Show me ONE person in America who gets “free” health care. This is essentially the Kagan argument, and it’s very offensive. SOMEBODY pays.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
2:30 pm
It was US District Judge Roger Vinson who in Dec., 2010, compared the health care mandate to the fed. govt. requiring citizens to eat broccoli.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/u-s-judge-in-pensacola-weighs-florida-19-1127535.html
Justice Scalia’s comparison to broccoli probably means that he read Vinson’s ruling.
md
March 30th, 2012
2:39 pm
Considering the mandate is the funding mechanism and the dems no longer have the numbers to cram through an alternative funding source, I think it becomes dead in the water………..
md
March 30th, 2012
2:46 pm
“Most Europeans have a far better standard of living than Americans. They don’t pay for college and they get free health care.”
Sure, if one considers 800 sf to be “better”……..I’ll take the larger homes with actual yards for starters…..then ask a few expats why they work here………
commoncents
March 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
Mary Elizabeth @1:50- “I believe health care is a human right, just as I believe social security is a human right in one’s old age, and a good education is a human right that should be available to all classes of Americans.”
I’m going to have to disagree to all three of those points:
1) I believe health care should be accessible to all, but not given away freely. It should not be deniable to the newly born, but beyond that, we each have the responsibility to provide for ourselves and our families. If you maintain insurance your whole life, you can’t be denied for having a pre-existing condition. If you choose to not have it at some point, then that is a risk you must be willing to accept that opens you back up to pre-existing conditions.
2) Social security provided by the government is wrong. Everyone should be able to provide for themselves some sort of future retirement income, whether it be deducting money from your own paycheck each time and setting it aside or investing it. If you want the government to provide this, that is ok. But don’t expect to get more out than what your investment is actually worth and don’t expect to be subsidized by others for the rest of your life.
3) I also believe education is a right, but you said education SHOULD be available to all, and guess what: It already is! Beyond high school, it becomes a personal choice and that cost needs to be paid for by the individual, not shouldered by the tax payers.
md
March 30th, 2012
2:58 pm
“They don’t pay for college”
Seems some here need to understand that paying a lifetime of taxes before going to college is no different than paying once they get to college.
And guess what, there are education plans here that do the same thing…….but it takes a bit of self control to get it done. Those that would prefer others do it for them need not try……..
Mark
March 30th, 2012
3:00 pm
The so called cornhusker deal Judge Scalia referred to was repealed and removed from the ACA deal by “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010″, and as such should not be used as the excuse to repeal the ACA. Whether it was ignorance or his desire to be partisan, it will be considered a low moment for our highest court. Please read the bill, Judge Scalia, and do the legal research for any subsequent changes made, so that your decision is based on the law, as it stands today, formally before you.
catlady
March 30th, 2012
3:14 pm
I want to keep the whole thing. Not that I need it; I have fair insurance through my work. But I am tired of paying for those who don’t have it. And believe me, there are a lot who don’t, many because they don’t want it taken out of their paycheck.
My neighbor, a TPer, rails against it. He has no insurance. He is sedentary, weighs in at 350 or more, and is 55. When he has to go to the hospital (and he will, more and more) he gets his free because he is “poor”. He SHOULD have health insurance, instead of expecting the rest of us to pay an increased rate to fund his care.
He is all for “personal responsibility”, but his mother, who lived to be 92, never worked outside the home. She “drew” on her husband’s SS for 20 years after he died, and on the taxpayers for the 10 years she lived in the nursing home. Her son did not have to sell the home to repay us for her care.
A responsible person takes care of themselves, and does not expect the rest of us to take up their slack.
the red herring
March 30th, 2012
3:24 pm
kyle–i think it is obvious tea party meber is not a tea party member but rather a person trying to turn people against tea party members. most tea party people i know are for less taxes, less government, more liberty. Simple as that and they sure aren’t walking around with their hands out looking for free stuff. I think the health care mandate is unconstitutional—i believe the health care bill was built around the mandate and should be struck down and the major portions of it reworked along with improvements such as tort reform. I believe people with preexisting conditions should be able to get affordable insurance. i do not think able bodied people should be able to have unemployment and free insurance for more than 18 months without them doing public work. I think only elderly, the “truly” physically and mentally disabled should get healthcare and unemployment benefits. I do not think illegal immigrants have a right to any of the above and feel they should be deported until they can apply and receive legal immigration. Any person that watched the way the health care bill was passed thru congress with republican/independent ideas being totally excluded should know that’s not how our government should work. To pass all that legislation behind closed doors (and even nearly resorting to “deeming” the bill to be passed) is simply unamerican. I don’t care if you are democrat, republican, libertarian, or martian—behind closed door legislation should not be allowed in the USA.
obooboocare
March 30th, 2012
3:33 pm
Strike it down their throats!
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
3:39 pm
“Justice Scalia’s comparison to broccoli probably means that he read Vinson’s ruling.”
That would make Justice Scalia’s argument even more deplorable, not being a spur-of-the moment comment but something he had time to think about.
Rafe Hollister
March 30th, 2012
3:41 pm
I would add that listening to an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court compare the health care to broccoli does not give one much confidence in the near-term future of this country.
Can’t help myself MarkV, I know what you mean, but have to give you a MarkV comment.
He did not compare Obamacare to broccoli, he compared the government forcing you to buy healthcare to the government requiring you to buy broccoli, big difference. Semantics and definition are your game MarkV, did you blow this one? Lets try to be more precise and clear next time.
obooboocare
March 30th, 2012
3:52 pm
To read these asinine comments directed at Justice Scalia by these leftwing want-to-be-communist clowns is hilarious. Lenin wouldn’t bother to call these idiots, “useful”!
Linda
March 30th, 2012
3:54 pm
Judge Scalia knows the Cornhusker Kickback was removed from the health care bill & that Sen. Nelson was the last Democratic holdout. Removing a bullet from an armed robbery victim does not remove the guilt from the attempted robber or erase the crime. The corruption & venality surrounding the scandalous bill will forever be carved in the minds of every moral American, including the justices.
DawgDad
March 30th, 2012
4:02 pm
“I want to keep the whole thing. Not that I need it; I have fair insurance through my work. But I am tired of paying for those who don’t have it. ”
I understand your underlying position as you laid it out, but do realize how ridiculous your opening statement is? You’re seriously in favor of keeping a plan that will require you to pay MORE because your’re tired of paying for those who don’t have it?
If you think I’m wrong about paying MORE under Obamacare, I’m not. The insurance through my employer has already gone up as a direct result of Obamacare. All the stuff about controlling health care costs was mainly true – they want to control the costs and who gets paid what, but they clearly aren’t interested in controlling the TOTAL cost because Obamacare is driving costs UP.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
4:05 pm
Scalia might have voted for the bill until he heard that a liberal on Kyle’s blog had called him, a justice of the Supreme Court, ignorant & his argument deplorable.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
4:08 pm
Rafe Hollister @3:41 pm: “He did not compare Obamacare to broccoli, he compared the government forcing you to buy healthcare to the government requiring you to buy broccoli, big difference. He did not compare Obamacare to broccoli, he compared the government forcing you to buy healthcare to the government requiring you to buy broccoli, big difference.”
I expected a certain minimum of intelligence on the part of the readers. Too bad you have failed.
1961_Xer
March 30th, 2012
4:21 pm
Really, the reason the mandate will fall is because the defense could not adequately explain in deterministic terms why healthcare is different and why (and more importantly) Congress will not be able to use the Commerce clause to force even more individual behaviour if it were to stand.
They wanted to say “everyone will need healthcare”, but that is not sufficient.
They needed to show how everyone will need healthcare, AND that they would be unable to pay for that healthcare when they need it, thus putting a burden on the system. Clearly, it is not the case that most people will be unable to pay for received healthcare at some point in their lives. Plenty of young people, myself included (when I was in my 20’s), go without insurance for years before getting a job that affords them health insurance, yet I never created a burden on the system via an inability to pay for healthcare. The government argument fails! Once I obtained health insurance, I never let it lapse even thought me nor my family has ever had a serious health problem/emergency. But the government’s argument is that I SHOULD have had to have health coverage throughout my 20’s because someday I WOULD be a burden on the system…. and that is patently false! I have paid about $200,000 in insurance premiums over the years, and received about $30,000 of care. The government would have required me to pay in an additional $100k…. because SOMEONE ELSE fails to pay under similar circumstances.
We are not our brother’s keeper. If I was, my “brother” would not weigh 300lbs. My “brother” would not smoke, or drink excessively. My “brother” would exercise three times per week, and eat his vegetables. But since I am not my brother’s keeper, I should not be my brother’s insurer, either. Until the government can compel the 30+% of people in this country who are morbidly obese to get their lives together, I should not be made to pay for their healthcare via mandate or subsidy.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
4:22 pm
catlady@3:14, You said you were tired of paying for those who don’t have health care insurance. How will the health care bill change that? How will the health care bill force your neighbor to have health care insurance?
If he does not buy insurance, he will pay the govt. $2000 per year & you will still be “paying for those who don’t have insurance.”
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
4:23 pm
Awww we are still on the snare of Obamacare! Somehow one branched off to broccoli and all its powerful inportance.
All I got to say is “Broccoli by any other name would smell as ’sweet’”! Only collards can outdo its sweetness. But I hear you, MarkV. Why would anyone in their right mind want to bring up broccolli, much less collards, when it isn’t even dinner time and no cornbread?
The clue to this mystery is “right mind”. The right mind becomes frazzled after a day of chitchat on undefinable subjects influenced only by the Supreme Court at this minute and dragged through all shades of ignorance and intelligence and battered by the dimwits of dullness and buffoonery. Just another day at the races! (That is NOT a racist statement!)
But I remain a dedicated blogger, who would love to stay on subject but the predicate keeps interfering. (So there, Prof. Mary Elizabeth, see what good education can do for you. Subject & predicate not forgotten.)
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
4:28 pm
1961_Xer @4:21 pm
You argument is false.
“Plenty of young people, myself included (when I was in my 20’s), go without insurance for years before getting a job that affords them health insurance, yet I never created a burden on the system via an inability to pay for healthcare. “
Such an anecdotal argument is no argument at all. Are you trying to say that nobody in his/her 20s gets seriously sick or injured?
Paleolibertarian
March 30th, 2012
4:28 pm
I say that medicaid, medicare, S.S., federal student loans.
And if the Socialists, I mean, Democrats want single-payer, tell them to move to Canada. I’ll help some of them pack. And I hope they take some of the worthless RINOs and NeoCons with them.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
4:29 pm
1961_Xer@4:21, Where would you be today if you had deposited 80% of that $200,000 in a HSA instead of forking it out to an insurance company?
Martin Williams
March 30th, 2012
4:33 pm
I hope the whole thing fails and we the idiots that have health insurance from our employers will continue to pay for health care for the uninsurd through higher premuins. I also hope gas price will be $4 and above permanently. Gas in the U.S. is still extremely cheap and we use more energy than any other nation on mother earth.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
4:41 pm
A comparison of health care systems of different countries is always problematic. For one thing, it is fundamentally false to judge the health insurance system of a country by the quality of health care and vice versa. Imagine the very best health insurance system, whatever it may be. It would still not guarantee a high quality health care if, for instance, the country were too poor to afford it. Therefore, it is quite ridiculous to use as argument something like the number of MRI machines per 100,000 people. It is equally ridiculous to praise the health care of a country, such as the USA, on the basis of people coming from abroad to have sophisticated treatments done here. There is no doubt about the excellence of the US medical technology. That does not say anything about the quality of health care enjoyed by the totality of US citizens.
The quality of the health insurance system should be measured by the universality of the access to affordable health care. As I mentioned earlier, there are countries with high quality health insurance using the single payer approach, and others using a highly regulated private insurance approach, as well as various combinations. The individual mandate is essential, although it can be relaxed by not being applied to highest earners. The main point is, the citizens of each country decide what is best for them. If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate of Obamacare, all that it will accomplish is to set back the health care for the Americans as a nation by a few years.
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
4:41 pm
Now, MarkV, you have broken your own rules. One does not disagree with a common assumption (old people are sicker than young people) without giving accurate FACTS to prove your denouncement. (Miss Manners also objects to the world “false” when there is a possiblity what was said is not false..Disagree is more commendable. )
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
4:56 pm
Hmmm..MarkV.. Some of your points are valid Others show slant.
Poor healtcare is poor whether it is a rich or a poor country. If you give a poor person poor healthcare, it is still just that. The usual way to improve it is to spend more money on all phases of that healthcare.
There is no way that anyone should say they cannot get healthcare in the USA. We all know the emergency rooms cannot turn away patients. Most states and counties have clinics. There may be people who are afraid to try for healthcare (illegals, drugs, faith healers, and those who think they can treat themselves). I have worked in many healthcare systems across the USA and I have found easy access for most patients.
For someone to believe that people are dying in the streets of the USA is usually some misguided person without the facts. But do not say that poor healthcare for all is better than keeping standards high.
The people of Cuba all have healthcare and it is considered fairly good. I still don’t want to be a citizen there.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
4:57 pm
Dusty @ 4:41 pm: “Now, MarkV, you have broken your own rules. One does not disagree with a common assumption (old people are sicker than young people) without giving accurate FACTS to prove your denouncement.”
Dusty,
Explain. I have not written anything about young people not been less sick than old people. I have argued that even young people can get sick or injured. The case presented, that somebody went through 20s without insurance and without requiring medical care that he could not afford was not a rational argument. Do you want to claim that other people do not exist? People who suffer such serious health problems in their 20s and need a very expensive treatment, and if they have neither insurance nor relatives who can pay for that, that other people do not end up paying for them?
Rafe Hollister
March 30th, 2012
5:00 pm
MarkV
I expected a certain minimum of intelligence on the part of the readers. Too bad you have failed.
No, you fell into your own trap, you have been outed at being imprecise, here is an example of you attacking someone else for being imprecise.
“Plenty of young people, myself included (when I was in my 20’s), go without insurance for years before getting a job that affords them health insurance, yet I never created a burden on the system via an inability to pay for healthcare. “
Such an anecdotal argument is no argument at all. Are you trying to say that nobody in his/her 20s gets seriously sick or injured?
________________________________________-
No, he is not saying there are no exceptions, he would say “he expected a certain minimum intelligence on the part of the readers” His argument was clear to me.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
5:02 pm
Anything the fed. govt. does costs twice as much, takes twice as long, has twice as much red tape, is twice as disappointing & requires twice as many bureaucrats as the private sector. It will cost four times more than promised & will have four times more unintended consequences.
Health care should be left up to the medical professionals, not politicians.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
March 30th, 2012
5:02 pm
No matter what, it’s DOA. Toast. History.
The mandate funds all of this illegality and I seriously doubt if a Republican controlled House is going to find a way to pay for late term abortions, boob jobs, liposuction and all the other “diseases” that liberals consider vital to their health and welfare.
And won’t obozo be the a$$, wasting a year of critical legislative process over this folly?
No New Taxes, EVER!
March 30th, 2012
5:04 pm
The main reason for out of control health care costs is the system of third party payers. Someone else’s deep pockets invite big price hikes, so let us eliminate deep pockets, and see how fast prices fall. No more health insurance means falling prices for all. Give it a try sometime. Each patient must pay for their own health care out of pocket.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
5:07 pm
Dusty @4:56 pm
Dusty,
You have to do better.
“Poor healtcare is poor whether it is a rich or a poor country.” Did I write something different? What I wrote is that if the country is poor, it may simply cannot afford good health care, whether it has a good health insurance system or not.
“There is no way that anyone should say they cannot get healthcare in the USA.” Are you wearing your rose glasses all the time? Emergency room cannot turn away patients. But there are still, plenty of people who do not get good health care because they cannot afford it. Do not be so blind. Actually, there are people dying in the streets of the USA. I would not argue with that, because those are exceptions, but still it happens.
“But do not say that poor healthcare for all is better than keeping standards high. “ Where did I say that?
As for your comments about Cuba, what has that got to do with anything?
Old timer
March 30th, 2012
5:18 pm
Retired early….After spending much time in Europe,primarily Italy, I disagree with your post. They live on much less income, small..to very small home, and many do not have cars. Young people cannoto find jobs. Many homes still do not have large refrigerators, dryers, dishwashers…etc. And taxes for all the “free” stuff are very high.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
5:18 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 5:00 pm
If you have such a good understanding of the argument, why don’t you state it?
Linda
March 30th, 2012
5:22 pm
My husband & I have lived under the administrations of 12 presidents. We have NEVER seen a president try to divide our country so far apart & so blatantly as Obama in so many ways. He’s been harping for years now about the evil rich, the fat cats, Wall St. CEOs, bonuses, millionaires & billionaires, corporate jets, the 1%, etc., not paying their “fair share,” blah, blah, blah.
It ain’t working, folks.
Everyone wants to be evil, rich, fat, own a jet, etc. who are buying lottery tickets today, including the Occupy Everything crowd.
Good luck, Americans!
Old timer
March 30th, 2012
5:29 pm
I would like to see cost studies of plans.. I believe we can create better less expensive plans where people purchase what they need. Selling plans across state boundaries might make things less expensive as would limiting lawsuits. I would imagine there are many ways to help control costs.
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
5:32 pm
MarkV
You need to visit the children’s hospitals of Atlanta. They are filled with sick chilcren and not all of them have their expenses paid by family or insurance. But they are treated with the same and the best care available. Now how did that happen? Most hospitals budget for indigent care and the sick get treated.
You seem to think that because no family funds are available to pay for a sick indigent child or person, they will not receive care. They will! I”m sorry but sometimes neglect comes from not knowing what is available.
Yes, there are a few people with incurable vicious diseases who say they cannot get help. But, with all the help that is available in this country, we now MUST have better healthcare when we already have the best in the world. I say it is not only dumbing down the system and probably more expensive in the long run.
The only changes we need in our healthcare system is to study it carefully by the experts on how to make it less expensive. The drug companies will help as they already are by giving free medication in many cases to indigent patients. The help of professional assistants is used more frequently. Costs can be cut in doctors’ expenses without the need for extreme liability insurance .Out patient surgery is more common now The list goes on and on but must be done careful and not by people with no medical training (as ObamaCare seems to have been done.)
bob
March 30th, 2012
5:33 pm
WE NEED HEALTH REFORM, PERIOD! We should put all the teaparty members on a cruise ship and sink it! haha!
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
5:44 pm
Dusty @5:32 pm
I wish I knew what you were arguing for and against. Let’s start with the following:
“You need to visit the children’s hospitals of Atlanta. They are filled with sick chilcren and not all of them have their expenses paid by family or insurance. But they are treated with the same and the best care available. Now how did that happen? Most hospitals budget for indigent care and the sick get treated.”
Read it again.” Most hospitals budget for indigent care and the sick get treated.” Hospitals budget for it. And who pays those expenses? The owners of those hospitals from their pockets? No, the insured patients who get charged high expenses. You have just made an argument for individual mandates.
“But, with all the help that is available in this country, we now MUST have better healthcare when we already have the best in the world. I say it is not only dumbing down the system and probably more expensive in the long run.”
Please read it. What does that first sentence mean? What does the second sentence mean?
I will stop here, because it is getting too long. I certainly agree that we have to study carefully how to make healthcare less expensive.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
5:45 pm
No New Taxes@5:04, What about a compromise? What if we had health care insurance policies exactly like our auto & hazard insurance policies? Most Americans understand that the higher the deductible, the lower the premiums. Americans pay for their own windshield wiper blades, tires & brake jobs. Americans pay for their own paint, carpet & appliance replacement. Americans should pay for the cost of routine doctor visits, medicines & tests.
Compare the costs of High Deductible Health Care Plans & Health Savings Plans to the standard health insurance policies we have today.
I know for a fact that doctor visits are cheap when the patient pays cash.
Insurance is supposed to be for accidents, fires, losses, sickness, etc.
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
5:46 pm
Now Mark V
You do know Cuba is a communist country with the kind of healthcare you seem to favor. That is why it was mentioned. You muist remember your connotations are almost as good as simple facts from which to draw conclusions.
The only people dying in the streets of the USA are jaywalkers, drunks, shooting victims, bike riders, and people who don’t fasten their seat belts. ObamaCare is not going to help a single one of them.
md
March 30th, 2012
5:46 pm
“I want to keep the whole thing. Not that I need it; I have fair insurance through my work. But I am tired of paying for those who don’t have it.”
You are aware that ACA provides subsidies for those that can’t afford it, right? It actually provides subsidies for those making a paltry 88k a year…….it’s the ones making 89k a year that should be stomping their feet.
The bill needs to be killed and allow the States to implement as they see fit……..50 laboratories working on the problem has got to be better than one sides’ vision of utopia…….
Ted
March 30th, 2012
5:52 pm
First of all Kyle, it’s called The Affordable Care Act. I wonder why people can’t ever call it by its real name. I also noticed that you failed to mention that Republicans are gleeful about striking down a law that would help millions of Americans based on a provision that they supported in the first place–the individual mandate. Individual mandates have been around for a while, they are part of the Massachusetts health care bill “RomneyCare” and the discussion about them goes back to at least 1989, when the conservative Heritage Foundation gave lectures about it and expressed their support.
In 1993, Republicans introduced health care bills that contained an individual mandate. Advocates included Senators Hatch (UT), Grassley (IA), Bennett (UT), and Bond (MO). The inclusion of the individual mandate was part of a compromise–instead of the public option the individual mandate was included. All of a sudden Republicans who supported the idea turned against it, because the President was for it.
The people who are clapping in audiences about healthcare not being available or accessible, or cheering about all Americans not being covered for their healthcare (the “let them die” remark at a Republican debate) are ignorant–and that’s being kind. All of the posters here who are so against the Affordable Care Act should give up your health insurance and pay out of pocket. You know why you won’t? Because no one can afford to pay for health care by themselves, much less completely out of pocket unless they are a multi-millionaire.
I would never pay for an AJC subscription..the sloppy reporting, mistruths, or just leaving information out to suit your own purposes is just too much for me. You and some of the others at this newspaper should take a look at some of the quality papers across the country and take your cue from them. It’s one thing to have a different viewpoint but it’s another thing to distort reality by not telling the entire story.
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
6:00 pm
OK MarkV
First sentence: Hospitals are managing their business ALREADY.. They have markups like any institution to make ends meet. That is what management means
Second sentence: We already have a fine healthcare system in place considered the best in the world. ObamaCare is based on the premise that everybody can’t get care (99% wrong). But expertise will decline the more people, ignorant of healthcare systems. try to .change it into a cut-rate affair that will do a little something for ALL people. No country with socialized medicine has first rate healthcare. I don’t want to make our good system into mediocre and costly.
Dinner time!!
Rafe Hollister
March 30th, 2012
6:00 pm
If you have such a good understanding of the argument, why don’t you state it?
Here it is,… you can dish out the spurious criticisms of other posts, but you can’t take it, when your posts are spuriously criticized. That was the point of the argument, nuff said.
Rafe Hollister
March 30th, 2012
6:07 pm
First of all Kyle, it’s called The Affordable Care Act. I wonder why people can’t ever call it by its real name.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually it is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Why don’t people call it that, maybe because it doesn’t protect patients and in not affordable.
Dusty
March 30th, 2012
6:08 pm
Ted
Forget it. I wouldn’t care if they called it BushCare, ClintonCare, CarterCare, HooverCare or anything else. It is an inoperable illegal expensive “plan” that won’t work. That’s why most people don’t like it. They know better.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
6:12 pm
Ted@5:52, It’s not called the Affordable Health Care Act because it’s not affordable. It’s costs were one of the many lies associated with it.
The Heritage Foundation & Republicans might have considered the individual mandate 25 years ago, but that is history & about to be declared unconstitutional.
Yes, routine health care costs SHOULD be paid for out-of-pocket. All the people in the US who are self-employed pay for their health insurance out-of pocket. All employers pay for their employees’ health insurance out-of-pocket.
It is YOU who is distorting reality by not understanding it.
md
March 30th, 2012
6:16 pm
And all those for this monstrosity know not what they do……..requiring a 3rd party bureaucracy to live between us and our doctors is just stupid, stupid, stupid……..
A market solution would be best, followed by a single pay system……..this behemoth surely isn’t the answer.