Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
This Washington Post article, and the numerous articles like it, has me puzzled. Perhaps you have the answer. If so, please enlighten me.
Decision on health-care law means Supreme Court will likely determine constitutionality next summer
By Robert Barnes
The constitutionality of the 2010 health-care law will likely be determined by the Supreme Court this term, meaning the decision could come next summer in the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.
The Justice Department said Monday evening that it had decided not to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta to take up the case. A three-member panel of the court last month decided 2-1 that Congress overstepped its authority in passing the Affordable Care Act, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance.
Now, this is Obama’s signature bill, the single most important piece of legislation he has passed during his term. And it is being held in doubt by the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance.
I understand the adverse selection reason why they want everyone to buy the insurance now. They don’t want people waiting until they are sick, which would increase the net cost.
Tell me where I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the entire problem be solved if it were handled like Medicare Part D? No one is required to buy Part D, but if you delay past your eligibility date, you must pay more for coverage. This also is similar to Medicare Supplemental insurance. No one is required to buy that, either. But again, if you delay, the coverage will cost you more.
Someone please tell me why the same system would not work for the health care plan. That is, don’t require people to buy health care insurance, but if they don’t buy it now, it will cost them lots more later. If I’m missing something obvious, I may give myself a dunce cap.
It could be modified so that lower income people would receive premium assistance from the government. And, of course, my suggestion is for the federal government simply to provide free Medicare for all Americans, but that would make Congress insane. It’s too sensible.
Anyway, what is your opinion?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
8 thoughts on “–Help! This health care fight has me baffled. Do you have the answer?”
It appears you cannot apply logic to any actions/ decisions or reactions that currently occur in this dumbed down, borderline insane country. First, it’s Obama’s baby so it is to be destroyed. Second, the small government, get the government off our backs crowd sees it as some infringement into their private lives. You cannot find reason in insanity, I suppose?
Rodger — But when the poor guy that the crowd let die at that debate got sick or injured, he didn’t even have time to buy insurance. I think those who don’t want to buy now, probably would continue to avoid buying anyway they could. So I think you are still stuck with some uninsured, short of some kind of disincentive, e.g., a tax penalty. And I am accepting the assumption that there is no real financial barrier due to subsidies. I remember my twenties; I was invulnerable; you couldn’t have paid me to buy insurance then.
Personally, I’m a bit of a libertarian here, and I’m not sure I like the individual mandate part of the law. Most of the rest I’m fine with, as I understand it.
But, I was in the life and health insurance business for 15 years and I came to believe that a single payer system a la Medicare is the best solution. Like Medicare you could have co-pays, etc. that could be covered by private insurance. Public health is exactly that and should be handled as a Public Purpose of our government. And, as you know, all insurance companies have enormous sums of money to be invested and are part of the financial establishment that is causing so much trouble, although many people don’t realize it. Taking away the premium income for health insurance would force some of them to shrink or go out of business. That may not be a bad thing except for the jobs.
The individual mandate that forces individuals to purchase health care insurance and carries a penalty for failure to do so.Congress has the power to regulate commerce;but does it,as here,have the power to create commerce-for congress to force individuals to engaged in interstate commerce by purchasing health care insurance from private providers.
In addition to the commerce clause argument,the Obama administration maintains that the individual mandate is authorized by Congress’ power to tax
and spend for the general welfare.Over the years,the courts has generally deferred to congress in determining what constitutes the general welfare.Congress represents the nation and what promotes the general welfare is essentially a political ?-If Congress determines that a universal health care system serves the general welfare,then the courts will not interfere.
The power to “lay and collect Taxes,”however,has been subject to judicial scrutiny..While Congress may tax for the purpose of raising revenue,it may not use the power of taxation for the express purpose of regulation.
If any case,if the individual mandate is to be defended under the general welfare clause,what the plain language of the bill calls a penalty must be regarded as a tax for the purpose of rainsing revenue.
Besides the fact-that President Obama confidently assured the American people that there would be no new taxes to support the medical insuprance scheme. no amount of adminstrative indirection should be allowed to convert a penalty into tax for rasiing revenue.This is not a revenue rasing measure and therefore cannot be justified under the general welfare clause.
But here is interesting thought: If,instead of using the individual mandate, Congress had relied on its general revenue-raising powers,under Supreme Court doctrine,it is almost certain that Obamacare would be constitutional. It would be an example of Congress spending money for the general welfare.
Conclusion,the only certain method of defeating cases of federal overreach as is appears that the American public desires to do–is political oppostion.A political party dedicated to limited government is an urgent political task..Americans will have learn, however,that the task today is not to weaken the power of government—it is to confine the government to the excerise of
its delegated powers and restore to its full vigor the partly national,partly federal form of government that was the legacy of the Founders.
Yes if can be solved if were handled like Medicare Part D–but only people with common sense know this!!!–It to far overhead of Congress for them to understand.
we are turning into a third world country. dont the people who are against single payer think that everyone would love to have great insurance for their loved ones if they could afford it? do they really think people enjoy not having insurance, and hoping nothing bad happens? this country is filled with a bunch of heartless, greedy, selfish, ignorant people. so called”gods country” what a joke.
Everybody that is griping about this law was silent when they were forced to purchase car insurance. End of debate.
I’d love to buy car insurance for my “pre-existing condition”, but then that isn’t a “risk”, is it, it’s a sure thing. And life insurance – I’d like to buy a policy on my late father, please.
Nobody is forced to buy collision and comprehensive coverage for their car, only liability coverage for the damage they do to the property of others. If Obamacare were like car insurance, there would be no opposition.
” If Obamacare were like car insurance, there would be no opposition.”
Hah. Dream on. This fight is about two things, neither of which is remotely related to pre-existing conditions:
1. Political: Republicans urgent desire to get rid of Obama’s signature legislation.
2. Constitutional: Whether the federal government has the right to force people to purchase insurance from a private vendor.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
1. It has nothing to do with Obama. It was a fight when Obama was a community activist. Remember HillaryCare (1992)? It’s simply a philosophical issue. Big gov. vs Huge gov.
2. The nature of the insurance is key, the level of government is not. Clearly States have the right to require car insurance, and if the Feds did that instead of the states there would be no conflict. We all have an obligation to be financially responsible for costs that we impose on others, like when we run into their cars or occupy a bed in their hospital. Requiring the purchase of insurance for such things is arguably a valid public purpose. Whether you insure your own car against having a tree fall on it (it happened to me, in an ice storm), or buy “insurance” to pay for the cost of your annual physical and your tylenol and your semi-annual tooth cleaning is none of the government’s business, at any level of government.