Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[12thMan]

@mlmpetert,

This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.

It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.