skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law

Above: Supporters and protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to find out the ruling on the Affordable Health Act June 28, 2012 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

Document

U.S. Supreme Court Decision On Affordable Care Act

U.S. Supreme Court Decision On Affordable Care Act

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care ...

The Arguments

When the Supreme Court weighed the fate of President Obama's health care overhaul law in March, the justices looked at several key issues:

March 26 - Anti-Injunction Act

An 1867 law raises the question: Did the Supreme Court have the right to hear this case yet?

Transcript & Audio: Supreme Court Arguments

March 27 - Individual Mandate

The court considered the question: Does Congress have the authority to compel people to buy health insurance?

Transcript & Audio: Supreme Court Arguments

March 28 - Severability:

If the court strikes down one part of the law, such as the individual mandate, does the whole law become invalid? If not, are there other parts that are inextricably linked that would have to be struck down as well?

Transcript & Audio: Supreme Court Arguments

March 28 - Medicaid

The court heard arguments on requiring states to expand their Medicaid programs.

Transcript & Audio: Supreme Court Arguments

KPBS Evening Edition

Glenn Smith, Constitutional Law

Above: Glenn Smith, a Constitutional Law Professor, talks to Joanne Faryon about the Supreme Court's deliberations on the health care reform law.

In one of the most widely anticipated decisions in recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the sweeping federal law overhauling the nation's health care system is constitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the requirement that individuals have health coverage or pay a penalty — known as the individual mandate — is within Congress' power to impose taxes. On the issue of Medicaid expansion, a majority of the court said Congress can expand Medicaid, but it can't strip states of all their Medicaid funds if they fail to participate in that expansion.

The conservative Roberts surprised court watchers by joining the four liberal justices to form a 5-4 majority. The decision came after three days of historic arguments in late March that hinged on whether the government can require people to purchase health insurance, if they're not otherwise covered. (You can read the opinions here.)

Republican leaders were quick to denounce the decision. "Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor," GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said in a press conference after the ruling. In what's sure to become a campaign theme, Romney added, "If we want good jobs for ourselves or for our kids, we must repeal Obamacare."

House Speaker John Boehner echoed that argument. "The president's health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire," he said in a statement. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety."

But President Obama, who surely was one of the day's big winners, called the decision "a victory for people all over the country whose lives will be better because of the law." And he urged lawmakers to move on: "What the country can't afford to do is refight the political battles of two years ago. ... Now is the time to focus on the challenges of our time" – the economy and job creation.

The individual mandate drew the ire of Republicans and tested the legal flexibility of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which supporters of the law had argued was on their side.

But that didn't turn out to be the crucial test after all. Instead, it came down to a finding that the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax, something Congress can levy under the Constitution.

The lawyers at SCOTUSblog summarized the ruling this way:

The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

The mandate, set to take effect in 2014, was seen by advocates of the law as a crucial tool in making possible a broad expansion of health coverage. It would help spread the costs across more people and would directly ensure that millions of uninsured people get insurance.

But the mandate got compared unfavorably to the government ordering people to buy broccoli. Good for their health, probably. But mandatory? Justice Antonin Scalia pressed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on the administration's argument that everyone is in the health care market, like it or not.

"Scalia: Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.

Verrilli: That's quite different. The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary."

Opponents saw the requirement as an unbridled intrusion on personal liberty. A brief filed by Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued the challenge to the law brought by 26 states, said the mandate was an overreach. He crystallized the argument this way in a legal brief:

"The individual mandate rests on a claim of federal power that is both unprecedented and unbounded: the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce in order more effectively to regulate commerce. This asserted power does not exist."

The Obama administration and supporters of the law had argued, essentially, that everyone is already taking part in the market for health services. It's pretty much inevitable that you'll use health care services at various points in your life. It's only a question of when and how big a bill you'll ring up.

Ultimately, a Supreme Court majority agreed with opponents who argued that the Commerce Clause wasn't broad enough to include the insurance mandate. But that didn't turn out to be necessary for the law to survive.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm very happy that Chief Justice Roberts was able to set aside the political partisanism and render a fair-minded decision.

I've said all along that while this healthcare act is not perfect and I would prefer a single-payer system, it's still a huge improvement over the failed system we have been living with for decades.

I believe with all my being that healthcare is a basic human right, and it **is** the government's responsibility to ensure **all** citizens have access to healthcare.

I know many on the right disagree with me, but when you look at societies in which all citizens have healthcare, you see:

- Improved morbidity and mortality statistics

- A healthier and more productive workforce

-The elimination of economically crippling medical bankruptcies *(which many don't realize is a phenomenon unique to the United States amongst other 1st world countries)*

I hope the opponents of healthcare reform will now give it a chance.

Of course there will be things that work and things ht don't, and Republicans should now put the bitterness and the threats of eliminating this healthcare act behind them and start working with Democrats on improving the aspects that don't work as well over the coming years.

Wanting a healthy, competitive society in which everyone has healthcare is not frivolous idea, it's a noble one. It's one that has been achieved in the rest of the leading countries of the world. It's something that we, as the richest nation on earth, should be able to accomplish.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 28, 2012 at 12:37 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

While I agree that our health care system is horribly broken, Obamacare does nothing to fix it. He's just trying to cover up the damage he has done as percentage of uninsured Americans has risen from 13% to 17% since he took control. This is all just political games, smoke and mirrors.

While the broken and split Supreme Court could barely reach a decision, it certainly doesn't mean the federal government SHOULD. The states should be responsible for the health of their citizens, not the US.

Let's not forget that as soon as there is a Republican president in office, or a moderate Democrat, it will be repealed anyway. Since Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2014, it may not even see the light of day.

So all this media frenzied chaos, hair pulling, and frothing at the mouth will be for nothing. Just a giant waste of time. Then again, what else do we expect from Washington?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Cadefender, *what* should replace it?

I think it would be irresponsible for a Rebuplican or moderate Democrat to "repeal" this without having a solid alternative in place that addresses our problems (coverage for the poor, no exclusion for pre existing conditions, etc.).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 1:05 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

As far as I know, Romney has no plan of his own on healthcare.

And his record in Massachusetts shows he agrees with many of the key principles of Obama's health reform!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 28, 2012 at 2:08 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Duck,

Replace it with nothing! That is my whole point! Washington has no business mandating health care. That is the responsibility of the states, not a bunch of career bureaucrats 3,000 miles away who are wholly in the pocket of the big corporate pharmaceutical and health care industries anyway.

But you're right, Obama is copying much of the plan that Romney already instituted in Massachusetts, which is actual positive action, unlike Obama who did nothing for the people of Illinois.

Just as Romney said, what is right for Massachusetts may not be right for Georgia or California which is why he will repeal Obamacare, and rightfully so.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really123'

Really123 | June 28, 2012 at 2:48 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

I think we should keep an eye on the divorce rate to see how many people leave thier spouse now that they don't need them for health insurance.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 28, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

CD, it is NOT the responsibility of the government (federal or state) to provide an individual with healthcare or health insurance. That is an individual responsibility.

It is also not a government responsibility to provide individuals with clothing, housing, food, automobiles or televisions. All of those are similarly individual responsibilities.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

CD, what makes you think the politicians running the states are any better than those in Washington?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 28, 2012 at 3:36 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

PDSD “Wanting a healthy, competitive society in which everyone has healthcare is not frivolous idea, it's a noble one. It's one that has been achieved in the rest of the leading countries of the world. It's something that we, as the richest nation on earth, should be able to accomplish.”

It may be your noble idea, but it is not a reasonable one. Look at the levels of taxation required to support nationalized healthcare and you may change your opinion about how important it is. Or you may not. In either case, while we have the highest GDP, we also have the highest debt and a deficit larger than the GDP of many nations. These are, in my opinion, not trivial concerns.

It is easy to be generous with other people’s money. Things look different when it is one’s own bank account on the line. Health insurance is a really good option for some people, but for others there are more immediate concerns and they may reasonably decide to focus on them first.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 4:09 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Benz, I have looked at the taxes and overall costs, and the United States pays more per capita for healthcare than any other nation on earth.

The next nation behind us is the UK, and they spend about **half** of what the United States does per capita for healthcare, and still provide health care to every one of their citizens.

The argument against government supplemented healthcare might make some sense if our system was efficient and didn't cost much, but that's not the case.

And another problem with our healthcare system is that people seem to ignore the billions spent on unpaid hospital bills by those who can't afford health care. It's not a direct tax so the right largely ignores this, but it's still billions and billions of dollars the tax payers eventually end up picking up.

There is no reason a nation that spends the enormous amount we do on healthcare should not be able to afford to provide basic coverage for those who can't afford it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 4:16 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Benz: *"Health insurance is a really good option for some people, but for others there are more immediate concerns and they may reasonably decide to focus on first".

One problem with this is that needing healthcare is not predictable.

Someone who is healthy may make a personal decision that they don't want health insurance right now, and then get hit by a truck. Just like that the tax payers are paying for their hospital bills.

Another consideration is that healthcare is not something any of us can avoid, and it's also not something restricted to the sick. **ALL** of us have bodies, you can't "opt out" of having a ody made of flesh and blood that requires maintenance.

In order to be healthy, you also need preventative care. Things such as physicals, vaccinations, health screening, etc.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | June 28, 2012 at 5:54 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

In response to the spin on here,there is no such thing as "Obamacare" The Affordable Care Act is now the law,the mandate is voluntary, there has already been a "mandate"to
provide emergency care for those who can't afford it,making costs go up for everybody
This law will lower costs for everybody. Many polls show that when people learn what's in the law it is very popular even among conservatives

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 28, 2012 at 6:23 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

CA Defender: "Replace it with nothing!"

That may be your opinion, but according to rank and file republicans who dislike this healthcare reform, they claim that our system is indeed broken. They just say the affordable healthcare act is not the way to do it.

Yet, they won't specify how *they* would do it.

Do they, like you, really think we don't need to do anything but lie about it because they are afraid it would not be a politically advantageous thing to admit?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 28, 2012 at 9:37 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

benz72,

The problem with saying healthcare is not the responsibility of government (federal excepted) is that hospitals must serve anyone who walks in the door. But they don't do it for free as taxpayers get charged. So, either we turn away people who don't have proof of insurance to die at the door, or we mandate public healthcare at the state level.

Duck,

State politicians are more responsive and accessible to the average citizen. We can also recall them by popular vote if they screw up (like we did with Gray Davis). Recalling the US president is impossible which is why they are always so corrupt.

Lastly, as I said above, I am 100% in favor of mandating public health care at the STATE level and breaking up corporate healthcare. The European system is much more efficient, cost effective, and fair to all.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 29, 2012 at 7:36 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

CD, that is (almost) precisely what we need to do. It will drastically incentivize insurance (or equivalent). There are other options; namely proof of funds, pre-approved lines of credit or other schemes by which one may demonstrate surety of payment. The critical issue is that this surety is provided prior to service.

PDSD, you are correct that the costs are higher than in many other places and that this results (at least in part) from attempts to cover costs incurred providing care to freeloaders. The moral answer here is not to mandate insurance coverage but rather to make it (or other payment assurance) a prerequisite to service.

In the end, the math has to add up. If we attempt to reapportion a costly service in a manner disconnected from payment it is going to fail. For those who want to subsidize people who are not worth the cost, please do so with your own funds.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | June 29, 2012 at 10:20 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

In response to the ridiculous arguments provided by the conservatives?on here whose politics are completely incoherent,CD blames Obama for uninsured rates going up?If he actually listened to KPBS or read anything about he would know the AHCA has already partially been Implemented and provisions already popular he's wrong about that too,To say it's broken, but do nothing is bizarre double-think To say it is not the responsibility of the Gov to provide health care or equate it with food,tvs and housing is more double-think and just meaningless right wing talking points repeated in their echo-chamber.Bringing up Gray Davis is priceless,8yrs of Arnold is the reason CA is in it's situation. there are so many circular logic fails in these posts it's impossible to understand their contradictory positions on anything Its funny how the right wing trolls never read the article or watch the broadcast or they might answer their own questions

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | June 29, 2012 at 10:22 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

for those who want to learn instead of spew talking-points and
uninformed opinion
http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/info-01-2011/health_law_benefits_2011_and_to_come.html

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 29, 2012 at 12:10 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

John, Why is it you believe this is a legitimate government function? The link you provided has some really scary statements in it.
No limitation on pre-existing conditions
$1.25M annual limit on costs with no lifetime cap

How are these expenses supposed to be controlled? What is the plan for paying these extreme costs? All I can see here is risking the healthy portion to try treating the unaffordable portion. Please explain how this is stable.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 29, 2012 at 3:31 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

TWO HUGE back-to-back Supreme Court rulings against the far Right--AND coming from a conservative court! I guess that's what hurts most!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 29, 2012 at 3:31 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

However, the irony here that it is Judge Roberts who saves it by CALLING it what Obama SAID IT WASN'T! LOL LOL LOL

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | June 29, 2012 at 5:04 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Benz72 you say"it is NOT the responsibility of the government (federal or state) to provide an individual with healthcare or health insurance. That is an individual responsibility."who says? you? this doesn't pertain as it is Private Insurance regulation,which is absolutely a key function of Gov these are basic grade-school civics The thing that is conveniently overlooked is we ALL already pay giant sums on the front and back end
I will not argue minutia of law detail which will be updated and hopefully improved. further more your opinion is irrelevant as the Supreme Court has upheld this law, by definition making it a legitimate Gov function. and please spare us the same old,tired 50yr old regurgitated, repurposed Barry Goldwater quotes

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Oceanside'

Oceanside | July 1, 2012 at 7:41 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Very happy to see the Affordable Health Care Act re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court. Making insurance more available/affordable for the millions of uninsured, who will now start contributing to paying for the healthcare - that they will need regardless of personal choice - will be a net benefit on many levels. It is a great idea, and only the government is in a position to enforce the changes that were necessary. It may not be a "responsibility" or core function of government, but it is a great idea.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 2, 2012 at 7:06 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

John, I (among many others) say that it is not a government responsibility. The Supreme Court ruled the law regulating insurance under the commerce clause was constitutional. That is not the same thing as stating that the court ruled the federal or state government was responsible for providing medical care to citizens. If you could point to a ruling that had made such a decision then you would change my mind about the law. If you can present a decent argument why they should if the question were presented to them then you can change my mind about the correctness of the policy.

I’ll refer you back to the previous important questions about cost as well as add a moral one. How much should a person be forced to spend for the wellbeing of a stranger?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 2, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

benz, Wrong again bob, the court ruled that part un-constitutional,and did not rule the Gov was responsible for providing health care,since you seem to be unable or unwilling to get even the most basic facts right and do not seem to listen or read anything on KPBS you can be labeled as a Troll

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 2, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

So called libertarian conservatives echo sentiments such as Benz72" For those who want to subsidize people who are not worth the cost, please do so with your own funds." This indicates a complete lack of compassion towards others and sense of any civic responsibility.At one of the Republican debates, when the question arose the crowd yelled "let them die"and cheered!This does not comport with any fundamental Religious teachings that I'm aware of except maybe some satanic cults
Matthew 25:31-46:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 2, 2012 at 10:48 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

"...I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." -Ronald Reagan

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 2, 2012 at 11 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Hilarious! George Bush says it's all your fault our heath care system is messed up!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | July 2, 2012 at 11:59 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Sorry the link above brings up a bunch of photos.

I was referring specifically to the one of two men on the ground praying with bibles open in front of the Supreme Court.

They were praying that the healthcare reform act would be struck down.

Just one more example of how modern Christianity has become politicized and no longer represents non-partisan compassion as it once did.

How else do ou explain people praying to overturn something that would help the poor have access to Medical Care?

Anyone who honestly thinks that if Jesus were alive today he would be against Obamacare is living in fantasy-land.

The radical right has done a smashing job wrapping up evangelical religion into its political platform, and in the process eroding many central tenants of compassion and love thy neighbor philosophies that were once part of the Christian faith.

Shame on these people.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | July 2, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

PDSD,

Remember that "Get The Hell Out of Nazareth" idea for T-shirts when the Bible-thumpers were screaming that there was no way Jesus would advocate for illegal immigrants' causes? How about "Just Die Already" for those who say the same about health care? Why suggesting that Jesus looks upon the poor and oppressed with disdain is not blasphemous is beyond comprehension. Christians are like Oakland Raider fans: Their belief system has nothing to do with their object of worship.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 2, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

John, you correctly point out that it was not a commerce clause vehicle but rather via the power to tax. Sorry if my error caused any consternation. In any case, that does not address the questions. I'll note that you seem to post several time while avoiding an answer. Does this indicate an inability to do so?

You are also correct that I don't have compassion for strangers, but on what grounds are you justifying that as a requirement? You are not required to care for me, nor I for you, yet you somehow maintain that we are both obliged to care for someone who doesn't deserve it. That makes little sense. Please provide an alternate interpretation.

Fundamental religious teachings are IMO a generally poor basis for founding governments; try Locke, Rousseau and J.S. Mill instead.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | July 2, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Healthcare is a fundamental responsibility of COMPASSION. We must take care of the weak and sick, regardless if they can pay or not.

However, it is NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE and Obama has no business levying another TAX on us when we are already struggling.

Let each state decide what is best for their own citizens.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 2, 2012 at 3:18 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

CD, please back up that assertion. Specifically, what limits do you see there being on that responsibility and from where is that limit derived?

If the federal government has no business taxing us to provide this service, why does the state? or the county? or anyone?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | July 2, 2012 at 5:09 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Benz72,

Limits? I don't see any limits for a state government to manage (or not) healthcare.

Each state has its own culture and economy which produces different needs. A single-payer 100% public system might be right for California, but not Georgia.

We need to stop viewing states as subordinate provinces. Each state is a soverign country that has its own constitution and sets its own limits on government. It just so happens California is culturally closer to Germany than Georgia.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 2, 2012 at 5:15 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

The stunning hypocrisy of benz response "I'll note that you seem to post several time while avoiding an answer. Does this indicate an inability to do so?"when dodging,cherry-picking,ignoring and setting up strawman arguments is his M.O. One question for Benz,Do you watch listen and support KPBS?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 3, 2012 at 10:06 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Thank you for clearing that up, Duck. I was wondering why the photo of Harold Gould or Julia Roberts--or the one making fun of Jewish dietary laws.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 3, 2012 at 1:31 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

I don't watch KPBS, but I do read it, and listen to it and support it. Which other question can I answer for you? Oh, and please start answering any of mine.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 3, 2012 at 1:39 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

CD, the limit I am referring to is in responsibility, not legal authority. This is a resource allocation problem with some very real constraints. For instance, is there any procedure so expensive or any patient so undeserving that you think the state should refuse to provide it? If so, how do you decide where those lines are? If not, how do you think it will be (or should be) paid for?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 3, 2012 at 2:37 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Benz, you say you do read and support KPBS and yet many of your posts would have already been answered if you had.Why would someone of the obvious extreme right read and support KPBS?unless paid to do so. I have responded to many of your posts and will not be writing existential philosophical theses on subjects, bottom line is the ACA will save you and me and the country lots and lots of cash

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 3, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Another answer to those that seem to be willfully ignorant http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jun/29/...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 3, 2012 at 2:59 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

John, I did not realize KPBS was intended to be a partisan news outlet. I also do not consider myself to be on the extreme right (for instance, I support homosexual marriage, abortion, the separation of church and state and the legalization of marijuana).
The questions I have asked are not adequately addressed by either the article or your responses and I see only one instance of an attempt by you to engage in a rational debate. Are you unwilling or unable to answer the questions?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 3, 2012 at 3 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Excellent reading for those interested on the the Moral and Ethical Foundations of Health Care Reform
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=106

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 3, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Benz says "I do not consider myself to be on the extreme right" and yet posts like
"I don't favor most of O's policies any more than you do. I think most of his goals are more Socialist/Keynesian" on gay marriage" If two is good, wouldn't three be even better? Why are you not advocating for polygamy?" and many hours of Nativist posting says otherwise, I will agree having read many I find the politics completely incoherent
much in the TeaParty realm

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 3, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

John, I'm sure it will not surprise you that, even while the link you posted makes some good points, I find several flaws in the arguments presented. If it is worth pointing them out to you, let me know and I will. Otherwise, we apparently have little to discuss since there are still no responses to the issue of cost, the problem of apportionment nor the justification of group responsibility (which the referenced article presents as tenets of Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism, none of which are valid sources of secular law or by attempting to assign federal powers to the preamble, which it does not).
Hopefully you can present a clear and coherent argument for your policy or discuss the foundations for your beliefs politely. Good Luck.

As to the issue of me being right or not… I try to tackle the issues on their individual merits, but if it makes you feel better to think you understand my positions without debating them, have a good time. If your argument somehow hinges on my advocating for some issues from a perspective you think is right wing, and that therefore they must be wrong, I would suggest you think about what that implies about the inherent strength of your own position. (By the way, the polygamy question was not sarcastic. I don’t think the government should be limiting the personal freedom of citizens there either.)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 4, 2012 at 8:21 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

benz I appreciate your civil response,I believe their is much in the ACA that you will like and benefit from,there are many pages of material showing how costs will actually come down available online

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | July 4, 2012 at 8:44 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

For those who want to know more on how the new law will affect them http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 5, 2012 at 7:37 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

John, thank you for the link, you are correct that there are aspects of the law that I approve of. Allowing federal options will put downward pressure on prices within states with limited competition and lowering the administration to service cost ratio is an admirable goal (though I believe competitiveness is a better vehicle for increasing that efficiency than regulation).
I still believe those positive effects are outweighed by large liabilities such as the elimination of limits (specifically for chronic conditions) and the undifferentiated inclusion of pre-existing conditions. It is my expectation these changes will increase consumption without drawing a matching increase in revenue from those specific consumers. This makes me anxious that I will be further subsidizing a service for someone who has not earned it. It is an ant vs. grasshopper argument that I suspect we will not resolve.

I hope you had a good holiday.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'HarryStreet'

HarryStreet | July 5, 2012 at 12:02 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

At least President Obama put something different on the table that can work if given a chance. The GOP would be happy with things as-is, which is no change in the current health care system.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 7, 2012 at 4:52 p.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

Thank you JOHNL for your bulls-eye posts. I have the same problem with 72Benz.

As far as CA is concerened, where have we heard that "states rights' argument before?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 9, 2012 at 10:05 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

MA, if you have a problem you would like help resolving, please let me know.

Harry, Systems must be stable to work in the long term. Do you have any insight on how congress intends to stabilize this plan?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | July 9, 2012 at 11:24 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

@BENZ, errr, the contradictions that being a libertarian brings with it?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | July 9, 2012 at 11:28 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

MA, I don't see any. If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to answer it though.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | July 16, 2012 at 11 a.m. ― 2 years, 4 months ago

What happened to personal responsibility? Living off government handouts should not be a career option. The government is not here to coddle us like infants for our entire lives. Likewise, my tax dollars were not intended to pay for those people in this country who make horribly unhealthy lifestyle choices when they need medical care. If they choose to self destruct they should pay the price. If there is no penalty for bad behavior. Yet more it is rewarded, then people are being encouraged to give up their personal responsibility to the government and rely on the government to take care of them and make all of their decisions for them. The attitude of the population needs to shift... people need to take care of themselves. If they want to eat themselves into morbid obesity, tax payers should not have to foot the bill.

( | suggest removal )