ObamaCare

The SCOTUS should be handing down its decision sometime this week. Any thoughts?

Personally, I hope the whole damn thing gets struck down, and Obama’s lawyers got beaten so badly in court that this may be exactly what happens. Yet what I think we’ll probably see is large parts of it struck down and then the Congress will have to deal with whatever SCOTUS left intact.

10 thoughts on “ObamaCare

  1. ObamaCare, aka RomneyCare 2, is awful. It manages to pick the worst of both worlds: It delivers a captive consumer base to the insurance companies that have made health care such a mess in the first place, coupled with a subsidy to be paid to those who can’t afford it. It is a typical problem of the liberal mindset – neither here nor there. “I want my capitalism to be egalitarian and my socialism to be of the free-market variety.”
    Even the SC can’t really mess it up much more, hard as they may try. Whatever they do, will have the effect of sending it all back to square one, or close.

  2. It delivers the captive consumer base in exchange for cheaper healthcare for everyone. It is not socialism. It is an attempt to end unfair practices of insurance companies. The only revision I think it needs is a replacement for the individual mandate. Instead of requiring people to get insurance if they can afford it, I think people should have to waive their right to insurance if they refuse to pay for it. This means that someone cannot refuse to get insurance, then get insurance as soon as they get sick. If they refuse to get insurance in the first place, insurance companies should be allowed to deny them coverage.

    • Of course it is not socialism. Only in the raving minds of Tea Partiers and Fox punditry could Obama be considered a socialist.
      But how does his reform make healthcare cheaper for everyone? Please explain, because I would think that if you guarantee the government will pay the bill for those who can’t afford insurance, then you are simply telling the market that the prices can go as high as they want, because the government will be there to back it up.
      Plus, if you remove the mandate, what is left? The legislation than becomes a minor reform that would somewhat reduce some of the most outrageous policies of the insurance companies – cutting coverage when it suits their bottom line and such.
      The scenario you describe of people who can afford insurance rejecting it is really not the problem – there is no evidence of that being a widespread problem, is there? Do you even know anyone in this situation?
      The problem is that private health insurance has become too expensive for the quality of services delivered on one side, hurting those business who still try to provide health benefits, as well as their employees who pay ever increasing shares of the cost, and a huge portion of people at the bottom of the economic ladder who have jobs that do not offer health benefits, receive no regular care, and end up on Medicaid or misusing the hospitals’ ERs.
      Obama’s health care is bad because it is neither a socialist option, nor a full free-market deregulation. Some hybrids manage to acquire good and bad qualities from both progenitors. Obama’s reform achieved something unique – it has the worst of both sides and barely any of the good.

    • There are a lot of things in Obamacare that will lower prices, and many are already in effect. It allows the FDA to approve more generic drugs which will add more competition in the industry and drive down prices. It increases Medicare rebates. It establishes PCORI, a non-profit NGO that determines what treatments are the best use of your money. Kids can be covered by their parents’ insurance until they are 26. It ends “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age 19. Insurers cannot drop customers when they get sick.It forces insurers to properly describe everything customers are paying for. Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. It reduces the costs for companies that handle benefits for the elderly. There is a cap on insurance companies’ profit margin. These are all things that are already in place. Also, the reason for the mandate is to keep the insurance companies from going bankrupt. There are a lot of things left without the individual mandate, but the mandate is important in order to maintain fairness in the deal.

    • jmurtonen,

      The authors have claimed that ObamaCare will do all of those things. Reality can tell us a far different story. That’s why I am a libertarian.

      To date, in Massachusetts, RomneyCare has cut down on ER visits, something you didn’t even mention. Overall costs have continued to rise, however, from 6.5%-8% depending on the data one uses.

      The recent ruling is a terrible blow for liberty and freedom in the republic.

    • A bad law stands, yes. But I think calling it “a terrible blow for liberty in the republic” is overdramatic. It pales in comparison to the many blows to the Constitution delivered by the Bushama (or is it Obamush?) administrations. Liberty has suffered much more from things such as the concentration of power in the Executive, the abdication of Congress to exercise its war powers and oversight duties, the normalization of torture, the Imperial wars, the use of the republic’s Treasury to reward poor and/or purely criminal business practices, the elimination of habeas corpus, the power of the executive to kill citizens without any legal procedure whatsoever, the list goes on and on.
      In terms of serious threats to liberty, this one barely shows up in my list.

    • Brandon,
      You miss my point. On itself, yes, it is an attack on individual liberty, but when you look at it in the context of the broad attack on our freedom and liberty represented by the things I mentioned above, this is minor. Which is a frightening thought.
      Libertarians, as understood in the US, seem to regard free markets as the most important liberty, based on their reaction to the different assaults on individual liberty and freedom we see everywhere. I personally feel more threatened by the growth of the security state than by Obamacare, even acknowledging that the latter is also a pretty bad thing.

    • Juan BP,

      I didn’t miss your point. I just think your point is wrong. Forcing individuals to buy goods and services is a terrible blow to liberty and freedom. The fact that this law has been passed in the midst of an ambiguous war does nothing to diminish this observation.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s