Oral arguments for and against the legality of Obamacare begin today at the United States Supreme Court. There will be six hours of debate. The 4,000- page document that calls for health insurance to cover every American has reached the highest court in the land.
Arguments for nationalized health care, as presented by the government’s attorneys, will contend that yes, Congress can force individuals to buy insurance. In fact, the administration’s speaking heads suggest that it just as legal as those states that force drivers of automobiles to buy car insurance.
The bill that passed a Democrat controlled U.S. House of Representatives and Senate has been debated since the day it was passed.
During mid-term elections in 2010, the Tea Party was formed to specifically attack Obama’s health care law, claiming the bill, which goes into effect in 2014, is unconstitutional.
Some argue that the law dictates to states that Medicaid eligibility (state funded health care for the poor) must be expanded, or those states that fail to go along with the government’s plan will lose federal dollars.
Make no mistake about it — Obamacare will be debated long after these hearings. In fact, it might be one of the most contentious issues to envelope the 2012 presidential campaign, along with high gas prices and a growing concern over inflation that seems to be gripping our economy.
Whether or not the health care law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause is somewhat academic, in that affordability is at the root of the entire sweeping change in health care across America. Can our stumbling economy afford to spend trillions of dollars without borrowing more to cover the costs when our national debt is already choking off any long-term recovery?
In a perfect world, the government should pay for everything proponents might argue. We don’t live in a perfect world. In fact, our nation should have realized with the financial collapse in 2008 we have champagne tastes and a beer budget. We should be coming to grips with the reality that for only the second time in our nation’s history we have a receding economic standing in the world. Other nations that were once considered among the poorest are beginning to thrive and stand ready to take our place of dominance on the world stage.
Whether one agrees with the administration’s attempt to socialize health care or not, we simply cannot afford the economic impact it will have on our nation’s struggling economy.
—Keith Hansen
Comments (14)
Add commentMake no mistake about it Keith
You better figure out who it is NOW who pays for the care of the uninsured. Thank goodness Keith you or any of your friends and family do not now , or ever develop a preexsisting medical condition that sends someone into chapter 11.
Keith doesn't even get some elementary facts correct,
so how can we trust anything he says?
Even Fox says:
A recent Fox News survey found...the 2,700-page law..."
4,000 vs 2,700...oh, what's a 48% inflation of the figures?
PS: spelling alert...don't read if you don't care. Keith, it is "envelop", not envelope. (paragraph 6)
Happy Monday!
headline fail
argument...not arguement
ha ha richie...that is funny actually
CSPAN
has a great discussion on right now.
I just heard that the Part D, the (Bush supported) drug coverage under Medicare is a mandate. If you don't purchase it at age 65, then you are penalized by higher premiums when you do enroll. Holy cow!
?
?
"WE" -- What do you mean by "WE"?
Keith - If you're goal is to irritate subscribers, it's working. I'm especially irritated by part of your last sentence -- "we simply cannot afford the economic impact it will have on our nation’s struggling economy."
Who is in the "WE"? Are the families who face bankruptcy because of healthcare costs in your WE? Are the small business owners who would like to offer health insurance but financially can't? Are the people who are trapped in their present jobs because they can't change jobs and risk not qualifying for health insurance?
Let's try defining WE as THE COMMON GOOD. WE can't continue the way we are, WE need access to healthcare for all, WE need to care for our neighbors.
Oak
The last sentance did not irritate me. Does the truth hurt or what? Remember nobody is forcing you to live here. (unlike this Gov healthcare stuff being forced on us) You are free to live in another country if you want. Like Mr. Hansen says this Country can not afford it. Plain & Simple.
The first sentence of this piece was generally accurate
except for the pejorative "Obamacare" moniker. Beyond the first sentence, it's riddled with inaccuracies, (intentional?) exaggerations, and generalized bloviating. I'm sensing a pattern with this author.
Steve Benen nailed it when he said "opponents of reform are counting on the typical American not knowing the details, which makes them more vulnerable to scare tactics and bogus claims. These same activists are also counting on news outlets a) being afraid to say who's lying and who isn't; and b) not being sure about the details themselves.
It's not exactly a recipe for a constructive national dialog. Indeed, it's an invitation for manipulation and/or distraction."
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019249.php
No one's arguing for "nationalized" (or "socialized") health care, as you put it, Mr. Hansen. Private insurers prevail, stronger than ever; your doctor will still be on Main Street or in Medical Plaza, USA, and the birds will still be singing their songs.
Correcting more inaccuracies, the Tea Party wasn't formed in 2010 (in fact, it's not a political party, but rather a wing of the Republican party formed in 2009). And the T.P. wasn't "formed to specifically attack Obama's health care law" (parts of which are already successfully in place).
And all of your sky-is-falling hysteria over "we can't afford this" is balderdash. Recent (March 2012) CBO numbers are even better than projected: "Obamacare" will pay for itself, and more Americans will be able to gain access to the necessary health care they've long gone without.
To date, opponents of HR 3962/"Obamacare" have spent 4x more than proponents, engaging in lots of fear-mongering and disinformation. This doesn't serve the health care needs of anyone.
Write something thoughtful
Our new editor or VP or whatever doesn't look very bright when he spews out the current Fox News/GOP talking points - anyone can do that. Pretty funny to read the big commentary right next to it which refutes, with facts, every one of his hysteria-inducing points. Come up with something original, thoughtful, or even true, Mr. Hansen.
Keith should stick to topics he knows
How about: The role of the community newspaper in the lives of its audience.
National politics is not his forte.
If you think health care
is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. P J O'Rourke
O.K. -- I'll bite: "What will it cost when it's free?" Yumbo
What WILL the cost be then? Thanks so much for enriching us with your knowledge on this.
Captron and Chapter 11?
I was downsized, lost my job and employee benefits, paid for COBRA for 18 months, applied to BCBSMN, United Health and others, denied due to pre-existing condition, therefore qualified and purchased MN Care, very reasonable premiums based on what I had previously paid with my employer. Frankly, a $98 annual tax or 2.5% won't cover the administrations costs to verify non-insureds, more or less cover their costs when sick or injured. You and I will again pay for the slackers! Period!!! Coverage is available to all in MN if you prioritize your responsibilities. Only these individuals can avoid Chapter 11 by prioritizing their responsibilities. I found that you can afford to pay for coverage and avoid medical expense, unless you don't care enough, or are foolish enough to take the risk. Been there, done that!!
Bubba
Like Nancy Pelosie said, we won't know that until it happens. Trust me, it won't be free and will cost most of us a whole lot more. As an aside, if it passes the Supreme Court America is doomed.