Posts tagged health care reform

Why Obamacare is good for the economy.

Why Obamacare is good for the economy.

President Obama Speaks on Health Reform

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act ensures hard-working, middle class families will get the security they deserve and protects every American from the worst insurance company abuses. June 28, 2012.

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs. This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the goverment’s accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection.

The Heritage Foundation: A National Health System for America (PDF)

Now, of course, the Heritage Foundation writes of the mandate:

It Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Personal Liberty and Strikes at the Heart of American Federalism

Heritage is clearly envisioning a national system—so it doesn’t seem concerned about implications for either personal liberty or federalism. How do we reconcile Heritage’s vehement opposition to its own idea?

It’s not so hard. The 1989 piece was written for the purpose of offering an “alternative” to rumblings about a proper single-payer system. It wasn’t an an idea that was actually supposed to happen. And it definitely wasn’t an idea that democrats were supposed to get credit for.

Now that their idea has become a reality, Heritage wants a new alternative.

In case you didn’t learn the first time: Beware of Conservatives Bearing Alternatives.

(via squashed)

Conservatives dream of repealing Obamacare, but the public just isn’t with them. 47% of Americans favor expanding the law or leaving it as is. 

Conservatives dream of repealing Obamacare, but the public just isn’t with them. 47% of Americans favor expanding the law or leaving it as is. 

Republicans Uniting To Support Chunks Of ‘Obamacare’ | TPMDC

Senate Republicans are echoing the House GOP’s shift in favor of some of the more popular “Obamacare” provisions, a sign that the party is uniting behind the strategy ahead of the election.

With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate three popular elements of the law if it’s struck down — guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parent’s insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.”

»You see; it is not “socialism” if they do it, but the way they will do it will actually increase healthcare costs for everyone.

The Supreme Court can legitimately overturn Obamacare?” asks a headline on the French news site 9 POK . The article slowly walks through the legal rationale behind the court’s right to wipe away Congress’s legislation. “Sans précédent, extraordinaires” reads the article. In the German edition of The Financial Times, Sabine Muscat is astonished at Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument that if the government can mandate insurance, it can also require people to eat broccoli. “Absurder Vergleich” reads the article’s kicker, which in English translates to, “Absurd Comparison.” In trying to defeat the bill, Muscat writes, Scalia is making a “strange analogy [to] vegetables.
Obamacare on Trial: Case of the Century?
Rejecting the Affordable Care Act could deprive 30 million people of health insurance, weaken the coverage for tens of millions more, and alter one-sixth of the economy. In those respects, obviously, it would be a highly consequential decision. But such a ruling could also have have far-reaching legal effects, the kind Bush v. Gore did not. At least in theory, the court could use this case to redefine the boundaries of federal power, in a way that the courts have not done in nearly a century.
What are the limits of the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Defenders of the law claim that the individual mandate, which requires most non-poor people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, falls within its power to regulate commerce among the states. A long line of precedents suggests the defenders of the law are right.
Critics of the law suggest that the commerce power does not extend to regulating “inactivity,” which is their term for declining to obtain insurance for future medical expenses. A majority of justices could decide to adopt that reasoning. But, if they do, the justices will be drawing a distinction that the court has never recognized before.
What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so.
What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so. Here, too, the government has the power of precedent on its side.

Obamacare on Trial: Case of the Century?

Rejecting the Affordable Care Act could deprive 30 million people of health insurance, weaken the coverage for tens of millions more, and alter one-sixth of the economy. In those respects, obviously, it would be a highly consequential decision. But such a ruling could also have have far-reaching legal effects, the kind Bush v. Gore did not. At least in theory, the court could use this case to redefine the boundaries of federal power, in a way that the courts have not done in nearly a century.

What are the limits of the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Defenders of the law claim that the individual mandate, which requires most non-poor people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, falls within its power to regulate commerce among the states. A long line of precedents suggests the defenders of the law are right.

Critics of the law suggest that the commerce power does not extend to regulating “inactivity,” which is their term for declining to obtain insurance for future medical expenses. A majority of justices could decide to adopt that reasoning. But, if they do, the justices will be drawing a distinction that the court has never recognized before.

What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so.

What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so. Here, too, the government has the power of precedent on its side.

Publicity Push as Health Law’s Court Date Nears
Republicans on Capitol Hill have put together a highly coordinated two-week renewed assault on the health care law, seizing on the legislation’s second anniversary and the next week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court concerning its constitutionality.
The health care law has polled pretty consistently since its inception, with roughly half the country for it and half against it at any given time. But there is some evidence that there is a growing consternation with the requirement that people have health insurance, which the Republican candidates for president have attacked as well.

Publicity Push as Health Law’s Court Date Nears

Republicans on Capitol Hill have put together a highly coordinated two-week renewed assault on the health care law, seizing on the legislation’s second anniversary and the next week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court concerning its constitutionality.

The health care law has polled pretty consistently since its inception, with roughly half the country for it and half against it at any given time. But there is some evidence that there is a growing consternation with the requirement that people have health insurance, which the Republican candidates for president have attacked as well.