Printable View
x-ring, I agree that the reason health care costs so much, is mostly a direct result of insurance companies. I do have to point out that there are legitimate reasons why insurance works the way it does, and why it costs so much. I've heard the statistic that 1/3 the price of auto insurance even exists because of fraud. I don't have a source for that information, but I know that fraud is a significant reason for high prices.
Roberts' ruling isn't final
By Sen. Rand Paul
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.
While it is clear to anyone who was awake in high school civics class that the Supreme Court has the power to declare whether a law is valid under the Constitution, that power is not a pronouncement set in stone.
Think of how our country would look now had the Supreme Court not changed its view of what is constitutional. Think of 1857, when the court handed down the outrageous Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans were not citizens. Think of the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which the court later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education.
I have a similar opinion on Roe v. Wade. Constitutional scholars such as professor Robert George of Princeton still dispute the constitutionality of Roe: "The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution."
The clause that the court majority used to justify the constitutionality of ObamaCare is one that has been subject to debate over the years.
Hamilton and Madison argued over it. Madison maintained that the powers to tax and spend were limited by the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Because what purpose is there to enumerated powers if a general power — the power to tax — could eclipse them?
In U.S. v. Butler (1936), an earlier Justice Roberts (Owen) got it right when he wrote: "The (tax) invades the reserved rights of the states. (The tax) is a statutory plan to regulate and control … a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. … (The tax is) but (a) means to an unconstitutional end."
Sounds like ObamaCare to me. I'm starting to like the first Justice Roberts more than the current Justice Roberts.
I see this as their attempt to make it like some states, I'll use CO as an example, for auto insurance. In CO, it is mandatory by law to have auto insurance coverage if you intend to drive a car. But not everyone is a good driver, some have terrible records (conversely, health ins some people are not in good health and don't treat their bodies in a healthy manner), so to offset this ins companies charge these higher risks more premium. The really bad drivers, who are too risky to be taken on by most standard companies are still guaranteed insurance since it's law, so there is a guarantee that they can get it, but it's usually through a non-standard company and they aren't given very good policies (low limits, may not be available to have comp and coll, and no bells/whistles like towing and rental). This can force premiums up for everyone else if the pool of bad outweighs the good. In terms of healthcare insurance, they're doing it almost the same except not creating non-standard HC coverages to cover the higher risk people, everyone is (here's that evil word) "entitled". It's all bullshit. Like said before, docs will start quitting because they're not making as much as they used to and becoming a doctor will become something more like non-profit charity work before too long. I see this road leading to some bad places.