Should the Supreme Court strike down the healthcare law?

[Littlelambseativy]

But the government already forces farmers how much wheat or corn they can grow, and that it must be GMO. You cannot buy or sell whole milk. You cannot ship certain products across state lines etc. Is there a difference now?? You are already being governed to death and some of you do not realize it.

[other one]

Well the decision is in, and it think it the best for me to simply

[ByFaithAlone]

Well... the 5-4 decision was made so the mandate is officially constitutional.

In the case of healthcare, this wont be happening. I have heard from doctors, as had my husband (we both are in the medical profession), who are more willing to retire or change jobs than stay in the health care system under obamacare. The same with other fields in healthcare. There are already shortages in healthcare workers to begin with. This will definitely not increase supply. Why? Because it isnt worth going to school for all those years any more. Its too expensive and working in those fields is far too stressful any more.

It isn't worth it? With a smaller amount of docs comes higher salaries and thus more incentives to enter the field and thus more docs and the cycle repeats. Equilibrium is still established. This happens in any case of supply and demand. The healthcare field is one of the highest paying in the US so people are going to at least attempt to get in on the profits. Econ 101.

You will also see medical advances slow down or outright cease. There will no longer be a financial reason for anyone to try and research or develop new procedures or medicines.

Where are you getting this idea? Computer testings, more advancements in chemistry and biology and you are saying that our technology will not increase? Seems strange to me.

What group did Obamacare create that didn't already exist that caused the change in Mammograms?

It wasnt a group he created. It is the influence his administration has over government groups. They can nudge and force any federal agency to go along with their viewpoint. The mammogram thing sent shockwaves into the medical community because it was such a bad policy change. When the feds determine standards of when some test should be done, the insurance companies follow it. It is standard procedure for hmo's to go along with federal health care standards.

Just to clear this up:

A. This is not a federal guideline nor has it ever been. It is an independent advisory committee called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

From CNN, Nov 2009 (when the guidelines changed): A federal advisory board's recommendation that women in their 40s should avoid routine mammograms is not government policy and has caused "a great deal of confusion," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday.

B. Furthermore the commission says that at-risk patients should continue to take these mammograms.

Here was what they wrote: "Screening mammograms before age 50 should not be done routinely and should be based on a woman's values regarding the risks and benefits of mammography."

C. Also it is not under control of the President.

From the US Preventative Services Task Force website: "Created in 1984, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent group of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or preventive medications. The USPSTF is made up of 16 volunteer members who come from the fields of preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics/gynecology, and nursing. All members volunteer their time to serve on the USPSTF, and most are practicing clinicians."

Furthermore this panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush. See http://www.nytimes.c.../20prevent.html

Any claim that this is the President's fault is just a conspiracy claim and political hype (see article above).

Fred, any presidential administration can influence any branch of the feds. And even if its not so called mandatory, it is how the hmo's decide their health care rules. You cannot get health care that goes against what the feds say is the standard of care. Try getting an expensive medicine through your health care provider that is for a condition that is not part of its fda labeling. Try getting a procedure or test done that is not in keeping with federal guidelines and see who ends up paying for it. It wont be the health care provider. It will be you. That is the reality of the marketplace.

I forgot you nicknamed me Fred that one night on chat lol ... I've been away too long.

The problem with your argument is that the new mammogram study is not what the federal government considers the standard of care. See the evidence from the Director of HHS who disagrees with the study. If the medical field follows this panel, then it is their fault, not the fed. As to the influence issue, Obama did not appoint any of the members on the panel and he has no control over their employment so if you want to blame someone for picking them, blame Bush II.

The govt has already said that it will limit resources to certain populations. Namely the elderly. Is that fair?

When and where did they say that?

Obama said it when he was pushing the bill. One of his administration also said it too although I cant recall if that was before or after the bill went through. I also read it in the bill, about limiting resources using fancy wording to mean the govt defines what the best allocation of resources to a population are, population defined as elderly.

Hmm... no offense intended jade but I always get worried when no evidence is provided, especially on such a serious allegation. To be sure, the government cannot provide for every single operation (neither can private insurance companies) but your statement connotes almost a hatred towards the elderly in the bill.

[Guest]

Well the decision is in, and it think it the best for me to simply

Yes Beloved, I Understand

Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. Psalms 91:9-11

Although I Believe This Bill May Not, In The End Be Of The Best Interest Of Most Folk (Working Or Not)

But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. 1 Peter 4:15

The law is not paid for. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $523 billion of health reform's first 10-year cost will be paid for by spending cuts on Medicare enrollees.

That means that more than half of the costs of this reform will be borne by some of the most vulnerable Americans: the elderly and disabled.

The chief actuary's report explains that as a result of Obamacare, half the seniors in Medicare Advantage plans (7.5 million people) will lose coverage, and the remainder will face higher premiums and benefit cuts.

Nearly one in seven medical facilities is expected to become insolvent and drop out of Medicare altogether in the next eight years.

Medicare patients will have increasing difficulty finding a doctor who will see them.

■The law will impose heavy costs on employment at the very time we can least afford it.

Employers of $15-an-hour workers will be forced to buy insurance whose cost for a family will equal half the employee's wages.

The uncertainty the law creates is already making employers reluctant to hire new workers and is contributing to our anemic economic recovery.

■Obamacare institutes a bizarre system of subsidies that will prove extremely disruptive to American businesses.

The law offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance—at work, through a health-insurance exchange (a state-regulated health insurance market) or through Medicaid.

Generally, the more money you make, the greater the subsidy at work and the lower the subsidy in the exchange.

Therefore, low-income workers will seek work from companies that do not provide insurance, while high-income employees will seek out employers who do.

Firms that ignore these worker preferences will not survive, meaning companies and entire industries will be forced to reorganize as they compete for labor.

The subsidies and accompanying mandates will cause millions of employees to lose their employer plans and potentially their jobs.

At a minimum, these subsidies will incite a huge, uneconomical restructuring of American industry.

■Obamacare's approach to health care delivery is bureaucratic and top-down.

The law creates a slew of pilot programs in an attempt to make health care more efficient. Yet on three separate occasions, the Congressional Budget Office has found these demonstrations are not working.

The time is ripe for health care reform that liberates patients and doctors and encourages innovation and creativity along with real prices and a real marketplace. It's time for a consumer-driven system of care that gives power back to the people.

Goodman is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis and author of ‘Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis.'

http://www.statesman...le-2406267.html

Nevertheless I Will Trust In The God Of Abraham, Isaac And Israel

Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises.

For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.

God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.

The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted. Psalms 47:6-9

And Rejoice

A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. Proverbs 16:9

[Guest]

This is an Op Ed piece.

John Roberts, this is an absolute must read.

Date: Jun 28, 2012 3:32 PM

Hey Folks,

I'm sure that I'm like most of you and disapprove of the individual mandate ruling. But, you must read this. Roberts may be is a wily fox. Read this op-ed, in detail, and see if you agree with Mr. Erickson. His perspective is note worthy. Bottom line: the ruling puts Obama, and the Dems running for re-election, having to defend a 'new tax,' not s 'fine.' This is strong fuel for the Republican arguments of those running for office, including Romney.

Don of Indy

Subject: John Roberts

Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

Read my full thoughts here.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson

[Guest]

This is an OP

After two years of controversy, six hours of oral arguments and three months of waiting, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the new federal health care law known as ObamaCare is constitutional.

As expected, the decision came down to a 5-4 split — but shockingly, Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, sided with the court’s most liberal four members. He wrote the opinion, making the case that the hotly contested “individual mandate” — saying that all Americans must buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government — is not a “fee,” but a “tax.” And that, he wrote, places it within the power of Congress.

That means the entire law — which includes provisions forcing taxpayers to buy plans that include abortion coverage — will take full effect in 2014, unless a new Congress repeals it next year.

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote. “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

That definition directly contradicts how President Obama sold his signature plan to Congress and voters from the outset. In 2009, George Stephanopoulos asked him about it directly in an ABC News interview.

“Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“No, that’s not true, George,” Obama replied. “For us to say that you’ve got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”

“But you reject that it’s a tax increase?” Stephanopoulos asked again.

“I absolutely reject that notion,” Obama replied.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was speculated to be the swing vote before the decision, read from the bench parts of the dissent he jointly authored with fellow justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“‎In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety,” he stated, pointing out the “great lengths” the Obama administration traveled to “structure the mandate as a penalty, not a tax.”

The ruling deeply disappointed evangelicals, conservatives and family advocates.

“This opinion may allow the government to compel people to pay into the system, but it can’t compel any of us to abandon our most deeply held convictions,” said the Rev. Rob Schenk, director of an evangelical group called Faith in Action. “This is a moral, spiritual and ethical crisis. People of conscience will need to make difficult decisions, including engaging in conscientious objection or even respectful civil disobedience, which may bring painful penalties with it. It’s time to be prayerful, brave and strong. From here on we will need help from God and from one another.”

However, with the main lawsuit out of the way, several others can now proceed apace: More than 20 cases have been filed challenging a mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requiring religious employers to provide insurance that covers sterilization surgery, contraceptives and possible abortifacient drugs.

“Had the court struck down the entire Affordable Care Act, that would have ended these challenges to the HHS mandate and there would be a win by default,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is pursuing four of the cases. “Now we will get a decision from courts on these religious liberty issues, and that will be a good thing for religious liberty generally.”

The presidential and Congressional races to be determined this November, already heated, will now become white-hot as a result of the ruling — an issue Roberts addressed obliquely in his opinion.

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments,” he wrote. “Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Read the piece, then the decision.