Kathleen Parker and PPACA

[bhunter]

Finnbow's girl has an excellent article.

Here's a snippet:

Critics of Obama’s plan are not just ornery partisans. Legitimate concerns include: The law is too big, it creates another gargantuan bureaucracy that will have the flexibility and compassion of Siri, and it contains too many uncertainties and too many fill-in-the-blanks beyond the reach of elected officials.

Democrats pushed through the legislation without popular support on the bet that Americans would like it once they got used to it. We may or may not find out, depending on what the justices decide. But this much we do know: Civil rights activists who were beaten, bloodied and killed in the struggle to have a voice were nothing like the bureaucrats and politicians who insist that the ACA is a comparable victory. The Civil Rights Act was a monument to freedom and human dignity. Health-care reform is . . . something else.

Well-intentioned though it may be — and serviceable though it could become with proper tweaking — the ACA is not about human freedom. It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s=rss_opinions

I'm currently of the opinion that the SC will strike down the mandate and with it the entire PPACA. I can't see a way that the court can justify this egregious attack on individual liberty. Considering the current numbers against the PPACA, it will also be popularly viewed as the right thing to do. There must be a limit on the breadth of government power.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Finnbow's girl has an excellent article.

Here's a snippet:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s=rss_opinions

I'm currently of the opinion that the SC will strike down the mandate and with it the entire PPACA. I can't see a way that the court can justify this egregious attack on individual liberty. Considering the current numbers against the PPACA, it will also be popularly viewed as the right thing to do. There must be a limit on the breadth of government power.

So Kathleen hates poor people?

Chas

[BlueStreak]

What egregious attack on personal liberty?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What egregious attack on personal liberty?

The mandate forces citizens to purchase a product that may indeed be against their wishes. I'd call that an attack on liberty; that is, a restriction on ones choices simply for their mere existence.

BTW, when I broke my ankle and was on hydrocodone, I couldn't sleep.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

The mandate forces citizens to purchase a product that may indeed be against their wishes. I'd call that an attack on liberty; that is, a restriction on ones choices simply for their mere existence.

BTW, when I broke my ankle and was on hydrocodone, I couldn't sleep.

I agree with my gal that the PPACA is a bloated mess, but the individual mandate may be the only thing good about it if we as a country hold on to the belief that the provision of health care is an employer responsibility.

I actually find the law that requires emergency rooms to provide free treatment to the uninsured more troubling. It forces those of us with insurance to (indirectly) pay for the most expensive health care possible for 30 million freeloaders who chose to wing it.

If guaranteeing health care to our citizens is the objective, I'm not sure it can be done by tweaking our employer-based system. Wouldn't it be ironic if a negative decision by the SCOTUS ultimately led to a single-payer system?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Wouldn't it be ironic if a negative decision by the SCOTUS ultimately led to a single-payer system?

Not if it were part of the plan.

"If this gets struck down, here's what will happen..."

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If guaranteeing health care to our citizens is the objective, I'm not sure it can be done by tweaking our employer-based system. Wouldn't it be ironic if a negative decision by the SCOTUS ultimately led to a single-payer system?

Because that's NOT their objective and no it can't.

This is their unstated objective;

Pay for your own. If you can't; Sounds like a personal problem.

What else fits the mentality, Pat?

Those who think the GOP just saved them from being forced to buy insurance may have just condemned themselves to it, or to go without. Just too damn blind to realize it, is all I can guess.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

The mandate forces citizens to purchase a product that may indeed be against their wishes. I'd call that an attack on liberty; that is, a restriction on ones choices simply for their mere existence.

BTW, when I broke my ankle and was on hydrocodone, I couldn't sleep.

How else do you bring down the number of uninsured? We have to get more people paying in, otherwise the cost of premiums will just continue to escalate as they have been.

Don't worry about my sleep. I'm fine. I only take the stuff at bedtime. and will be running out soon anyways. I never filled the last script he handed me.

Dave

[Bigerik]

Wouldn't the current system also be an attack on liberty? After all, corporations are people too.

[merrylander]

After listening to the so called conservative justices questions they seem to believe that they are legislators, talk about "activist" judges.

If they strike this down look for the hospitals to sue declaring that constitutionally the government had no power to force them to provide free healthcare to the indigent freeloaders.