advertisement

ROSE NOLEN: Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule the Constitution ensures well-being

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 7:55 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Last week the United States Supreme Court heard arguments to determine the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The court was examining certain aspects of the legislation. Some time in June we will find out what they decide.

A lot of people are greatly concerned about passage of the act. We look forward to the day when all Americans will be able to have affordable health care. Of course, many others were opposed to the bill. It is their feeling that it is unconstitutional for Americans to be forced to buy health care insurance whether they want to or not.

MoreStory


Related Media

The country has been around a long time. People live a lot longer now than they did in previous years. Medical science has advanced to such a great degree, it's possible for people to enjoy good health to a greater age. The cost of health care, however, has increased to the point where those at the lower level of the pay scale and those who are unemployed are unable to afford adequate health care.

Those who are able to afford health care complain that some individuals who have not paid into the health care system, who were able to do so but chose not to, often have sudden illnesses which cause them to have to be hospitalized. With no insurance, these individuals' health care costs are passed on to others to pay. Paying customers of the health care system claim this is unfair. And they are exactly right.

I consider the Constitution of the United States a superior document. I think its purpose, though, is to ensure the well-being of U.S. citizens. Many others consider this a sacred, untouchable document with the sole purpose of outlining our rights and privileges. I, however, am not a constitutional scholar, and I'm sure the court will straighten us out.

After the court has made its decision, we will know where we stand on this matter. In any case, we must deal with our health care crisis. I certainly hope those who were so critical about this plan can offer something to replace it. We have millions of people who are sick and cannot afford medical help. We have millions of people who have illnesses their insurance company will not cover. We have the responsibility to find ways to eliminate these problems.

Some have said they are not their brother's keeper and have no desire to be. Perhaps, ultimately, that is the kind of country this one will become. Still, presently there are many of us who want to do something to solve the problem. We are not content to sit by and watch people die for lack of health care. That is the backbone of our claim to being civilized.

In decisions like these people very frequently use careless language. They say things they hope will please others. They say things they hope will make them sound brave and courageous. Actually, what it's about is being human.

Consider the children. Millions of them will not receive necessary vaccinations and other health saving treatments because they cannot afford to pay for them. Many young adults will not be allowed to remain on their parent's insurance policies while they finish school and are able to assume complete financial responsibility for themselves.

Until June rolls around, all we can do is hope for the best. We know if this effort fails some people will just roll up their sleeves and go back to work. And they'll just keep working until they figure something out.

I'm afraid to go to sleep some nights for fear that I will wake up in the morning and find that all the good people have disappeared.

I have been told adequate health care is a privilege, not a right. Maybe when we grow up all that will change. Here's hoping.

You can join the conversation with Rose M. Nolen by calling her at 882-5734 or emailing her at nolen@iland.net.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Gary Straub April 3, 2012 | 9:35 a.m.

"I am not my brother's keeper, and have no desire to be"... I am also very concerned that this is the way our country is going. Patriotism has become a commercial and political endeavor, while the above statement shows our true feelings. If we as citizens of this country - or any other - do not feel the need to make our country and it's inhabitants healthy than why have a country. Of course these same people that don't want any of their assets going to help those in need, would cry the loudest if our soldiers adopted the same attitude. Unfortunately, we now have a supreme court that seems to have forgotten the first three words of the constitution...We the People.

Of course, since the Affordable Health Act's provision in question will be a giant windfall for the insurance companies, this business first court's decision cannot be as easily predicted as Citizens United was.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield April 3, 2012 | 10:07 a.m.

The Affordable Care Act lives up to its name for about one-third of the uninsured: the roughly 16 million who will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program. If you already have insurance, you'll pay increasingly higher premiums because the ACA doesn't magically make people who are unable to afford insurance suddenly capable of buying it.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor April 3, 2012 | 10:30 a.m.

News Flash !!!
America was founded as a socialistic country and now we are trying to move away from that!

At least that is the argument that Rose and Gary would have you believe...

I think with such a divide between what Rose wants our contitution to be and what it actually says, going in to more detail might just be a waste of time...

Simple solution!

If you want to grant this power to the feds get a constitutional amendment passed. Until then, stop enabling the complete lack of responsibility that is the single greatest threat to our nation!

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 3, 2012 | 11:51 a.m.

"Patriotism has become a commercial and political endeavor,". Patriotism has become a dirty word, not to be spoken or expressed in the world of the progressive liberal.

32 million newly, medically, insured. No new doctors! 16,000 new IRS agents required and supplied. We whom question these few facts about the ACA are referred to by Gary Straub and his liberals as people who "do not feel the need to make our country and it's inhabitants healthy".

Lacking any favorable facts, these people rely upon emotion and innuendo as weapons for defense of their failed, socialist, economics.

(Report Comment)
Cheyenne Greene April 3, 2012 | 12:01 p.m.

I challenge you to name 1 child who has been denied health care for pre-existing conditions prior to the passage of ACA! For that matter can you name 1 person who has been denied healthcare for a pre-existing condition. NOTE: health insurance does not equal health care!

(Report Comment)
Cheyenne Greene April 3, 2012 | 12:09 p.m.

Rose says "Consider the children. Millions of them will not receive necessary vaccinations and other health saving treatments because they cannot afford to pay for them." Really Rose, you just lost a load of credibility with that statement. Can anyone name a child who has not been provided vaccinations because the parent cant afford it? you can get vaccinations for $5 without question at the County Health Dept now, and if you can't afford that you will be provided at no cost.

None of this has to do with the Constitutionality of mandating commerce.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith April 3, 2012 | 12:50 p.m.

Well, Cheyenne, if misstatements could be turned into hard currency* there would BE no national debt and all government programs, those that exist now and those that are yet to be, would be fully funded as passed.

Have you noted that Rose, of four columnists who appear in the on line edition of the Missourian, is the only one who seldom steps up to the plate and directly defends what she writes?

*- Over half a century ago I lived briefly in Alexandria, Virginia. I can imagine all those gold coins spilling out across the river and inundating the place where I lived - and I lived on the 8th floor!

(Report Comment)
Cheyenne Greene April 3, 2012 | 1:48 p.m.

I agree Mr. Smith. She reminds me of the 'hit and run' kind of arguements delivered by freshmen.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile April 4, 2012 | 8:21 a.m.

Just to make sure I'm understanding the conservative minds correctly - You all are saying that it is unconstitutional to make someone pay for health insurance but you also don't want the uninsured's care to increase the tax burden for the rest of us. So tell me then, what is your brilliant solution? You can't have it both ways unless you deny healthcare for those without insurance (which is exactly what Cheyenne is saying never happens).

(Report Comment)
Jim Michaelson April 4, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

@Brian Trenhaile - My conservative mind believes that it is unconstitutional for our government to REQUIRE a U.S. Citizen to purchase a product from a private business. PERIOD. Do you believe that it's constitutional?

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub April 4, 2012 | 10:18 a.m.

Helping your fellow citizens is patriotism, giving billions to oil barons is socialism. For the record, I am vehemently opposed to the government forcing me to buy a product from any private company. That includes health insurance and car insurance.

Frank: Your constant attacks are becoming very annoying. Your standard line that no facts are presented, is not only a prevarication but is pure hypocrisy. Try presenting a fact to back up your vitriol sometime.

Cheyenne, if only your statements were true. Here are a few resources for you.

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-...

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20...

http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-215...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health...

http://healthinsurance.about.com/u/ua/he...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartFailur...

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders April 4, 2012 | 10:47 a.m.

The idea that the Constitution has any bearing upon the actions of the occupants of DC is laughable on its face.

This is nothing more than election-year games to generate interest in the "Most Important Election, EVER!"

Besides, the entire world governing structure is wholly insolvent. So...

Enjoy the insane price inflation that is the result of the massive demand for "more money" which, is nothing more than "more debt," as ALL money is borrowed into existence. The ninety-nine percenters are about to discover what mass poverty is like.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 4, 2012 | 11:14 a.m.

Gary Straub - It would never occur to you, I'm sure, that continued generalizations, depicting our country as lacking every time something "liberal" is not overwhelmingly embraced becomes at least, "irritating"?

Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. Helping your fellow citizens is "philanthropy". Example of "Patriotism has become a dirty word, not to be spoken or expressed", is the outcry when Columbia Councilman suggested the Pledge of Allegiance be recited at those meetings.

I looked up the numbers in last post to make sure of accuracy. Good thing, I had thought newly insured was 3M rather than 32M. I was unable to quickly find the source again so that you may be spoon fed the information.

I thought this forum was for discussion, was not for the privilege of reading someones repeated sermons.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile April 4, 2012 | 11:21 a.m.

@Jim Michaelson - I never questioned whether or not purchasing automobile insurance was constitutional or not.

But let's just leave it at that. I've heard all of the conservative arguments and viewpoints against the auto insurance idea and how it is different from "ObamaCare" and I guess it's just a fundamental disagreement that I hold.

I believe it is reasonable to assume that everyone will require healthcare at some point and by not obtaining health insurance, you are simply passing the buck. If I promise not to have an accident with my vehicle, does that mean I don't have to purchase insurance?

(Report Comment)
Jim Michaelson April 4, 2012 | 11:40 a.m.

@Brian Trenhaile - I am not required by law to purchase automobile insurance from a private company. I do, but the law does not require me to. It is entirely my choice. But I am really trying to understand the liberal mindset here, so I'll ask the question again, since you did not answer it the first time I asked. Do you believe that it is unconstitutional for our government to REQUIRE a U.S. Citizen to purchase a product from a private business. Yes or no?

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile April 4, 2012 | 12:06 p.m.

@Jim Michaelson - But you ARE required by law to purchase insurance if you operate a vehicle. That is the reason I brought up that it is reasonable that every single person will require healthcare at one point in their life. Why is it fair that I pay my premiums so my healthcare is paid for by an insurance company only to find out that someone else didn't pay for coverage and still received the same care without ever dropping a dime?

Your question is far too broad and sweeping to be answered with a simple yes/no as you have requested. If I said yes to your question, a generalization could be made that it is also constitutional for the government to make all citizens purchase a Rolex watch. To jump from the legalities at stake with Obamacare to purchasing a Rolex watch is a great reach.

I do understand your argument. To be honest, I'm not positive the mandate is constitutional. My degree is not in law. Obviously, the constitutionality of the mandate and its surroundings are very complex as it has made it all the way to the Supreme Court. To think you or I can determine whether or not it is constitutional is laughable.

Do I think the mandate is a great idea? - Hell yes. Do I hope it stands? - Yes. If it is deemed unconstitutional, can someone please explain why RomneyCare is also not deemed the same?

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub April 4, 2012 | 12:25 p.m.

@Frank: "Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty."

OK, so what is a country, a chunk of land or the people that make up the chunk of land? Do you devote your love, support, and defense to the chunk of land or the people that make the chunk.

Our country was founded on this belief: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And, yes I am very cognizant of your dislike for anything that you judge to be liberal or progressive. I have fought and will continue to fight for the rights of our citizens who make up this wonderful country. However, I do not and never will fight for the rights of corporations to destroy it.

@Jim: If you live in Missouri and most every other state you are required by law to not only have car insurance but to carry proof of it in your vehicle, and to show proof of it to get a license.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield April 4, 2012 | 12:32 p.m.

"But you ARE required by law to purchase insurance if you operate a vehicle."

"If you live in Missouri and most every other state you are required by law to not only have car insurance"

Aren't surety bonds still a legal alternative to car insurance in Missouri?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 4, 2012 | 12:57 p.m.

Jimmy, I believe you are correct that one can post a bond and not be required to carry auto insurance. At least, I have no recollection of that portion of the law being repealed.

We all die. Should the federal government mandate that we all purchase life insurance to cover our burial expenses, pay any debts in the estate, and care for dependents?

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 4, 2012 | 2:19 p.m.

Gary s. - "Do you devote your love, support, and defense to the chunk of land.. You forgot to mention "a piece of cloth" (our flag), usually brought up as a silly showing of patriotism.

You quoted from Declaration of Independence, seen as a promise which our Constitution fulfills. You are cognizant of my "dislike for anything that (I) judge to be liberal or progressive." You "will continue to fight for the rights of our citizens who make up this wonderful country." All the while verbally supporting the political party, Democrats, that produces leaders whom, Obama, "our Constitution is an obstruction..." It hampers him in providing us with his idea of good things. Justice Ruth Ginsberg, has been in Egypt telling those saddled with duty of a new Constitution, Not to consider the US Constitution! Prominent members, Geo. Soros, "our rights should not be inalienable. "We should be able to change them!

The constant demonization of all "Corporations", only by liberals is obviously, utterly false. Even the Communistic countries keep a few Corp. around to provide products required by the State. This, without doubt would be the case if the people you support get their way.

Please explain in as many words as you wish or are allowed, why one should not doubt the sincerity of your "fight for the rights of our citizens who make up this wonderful country.", when you are so adamant that Obama's ACA with so many hundreds of risks contained therein, be allowed to stand with hundreds of exemptions already allowed to gain votes for passage, exposed lies in the accounting and not be judged as to it's adherence to the Constitution which you revere? Is it your belief that your stance helps those people more than the one that wants to ascertain that the people are not saddled with a system that will destroy our present great delivery of health care and destroy our economy with it?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor April 4, 2012 | 2:23 p.m.

WHO requires you to buy car insurance???

IT AiN'T The FEDS !!!

The federal government does not have a direct interest in whether or not you buy car insurance.

There are many states that allow you to go without car insurance if you prove you have the financial ability to pay for whatever YoU Do To SoMEONE ELsE !!!
(In South Carolina you can pay a fee of $550 and go without insurance.)

See, there is a big difference between requiring people to take responsibility (or prove that they can) for what they do to someone else and requiring them to take responsibility for themselves. No state (remember the feds don't require you because they can't per that piece of paper people like to abuse for their own agenda's) requires you to buy collision and comp coverage so that you will still have a car to drive to work if you wrap yours around a tree. The states issues your drivers license and they can make the rules regarding those licenses. I personally think requiring proof of finanical responsibility before a state issues you a license to operate deadly machinery is a good thing.

I would equate using this empty argument to "jumping the shark". If you have to go here, it's already over...

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 4, 2012 | 3:59 p.m.

Gary, my failure to capitalize the first letter of your last name in my post, was a purely accidental typo. Not a subtle show of disrespect as could be considered by most reading it. Sorry.

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub April 4, 2012 | 4:28 p.m.

Sorry I guess I will have to start writing shorter posts since apparently no one reads them through. I have never said I was a Democrat, I never said that I supported ACA, and for the record I find President Obama disappointing. And I did not say the Federal government requires one to have auto insurance. My time working for the military as a soldier and civilian are not open to discussion.

(Report Comment)
Jim Michaelson April 4, 2012 | 4:51 p.m.

@Brian Trenhaile - I am NOT required to buy insurance from a private company if I operate a vehicle. The law states that I must provide proof of financial responsibility.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 4, 2012 | 6:59 p.m.

Gary - I noted my typo after I rechecked the whole bit to ascertain that you were against the legal challenge to ACA. I got,"If we as citizens of this country - or any other - do not feel the need to make our country and it's inhabitants healthy than why have a country. Of course these same people that don't want any of their assets going to help those in need, would cry the loudest if our soldiers adopted the same attitude. Unfortunately, we now have a supreme court that seems to have forgotten the first three words of the constitution...We the People.

Of course, since the Affordable Health Act's provision in question will be a giant windfall for the insurance companies, this business first court's decision cannot be as easily predicted as Citizens United was. Shorter posts not necessary, but possibly a little more concise?

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile April 4, 2012 | 7:45 p.m.

@Mike Mentor - By not obtaining your own health insurance, you are affecting others indirectly. That is partially (along with malpractice and many other factors) the reason why health care is so expensive in the United States and thus, why my insurance premiums keep rising.

So if the ACA was modified to state you can either purchase health insurance from a private company OR provide other proof of financial responsibility (per a bond, cash deposit, etc), you would be OK with that?

I'd also love to hear why conservatives are against ObamaCare yet Romney is flying right through all of the primaries for the republican nomination. His health care reform in Massachusetts also requires you to purchase insurance or pay a penalty which seems to be the hot issue with ACA.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield April 4, 2012 | 8:18 p.m.

"By not obtaining your own health insurance, you are affecting others indirectly."

Not always. I haven't had health insurance in more than a decade. I've paid everything out of pocket. I don't want an insurance company or a bureaucrat deciding my care.

If I needed, say, $200K worth of care, I'd take it out of savings. I wonder how many of those with insurance can say they've paid that much in premiums so far. If they haven't, aren't they guilty of driving up the cost of care for everyone else by expecting to receive more than they've paid in?

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 4, 2012 | 9:07 p.m.

JB - Don't forget,Brian is speaking for the "huddled masses", not individual human beings.

Brian also queries, "Do I think the mandate is a great idea? - Hell yes. Do I hope it stands? - Yes. If it is deemed unconstitutional, can someone please explain why RomneyCare is also not deemed the same?" Might I suggest, Romneycare, has not Yet been legally challenged by the citizens of Massachusetts?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith April 5, 2012 | 5:30 a.m.

I feel this uncontrollable surge of "poetry" coming on:

Quothe he unto the huddled masses,
"It's time to get up off your asses."

[The Devil made me do that!]

How's that one grab you, Mentor?

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 5, 2012 | 7:09 a.m.

Into the Apple Jack again, I see.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile April 5, 2012 | 7:53 a.m.

@Frank Christian - Reading through the entirety of comments on this page again, I came across your quote, "All the while verbally supporting the political party, Democrats, that produces leaders whom, Obama, "our Constitution is an obstruction...".

Are you inferring the President said that? Or are you paraphrasing the conservative hero Limbaugh?

The reason I brought up RomneyCare is because the idea of this Healthcare insurance system was a Republican idea (that began long before Romney implemented his healthcare system). However, the second that a democratic President suggests we sign it, all hell breaks loose. Republicans have stated since the day Obama got elected that their #1 goal was to do everything possible to ensure he doesn't get a 2nd term. I voted for Obama and do consider myself a liberal, but many of the things he has done in his first term have been more conservative than liberal. It's just that the right wing keeps tracking further and further to the right so the "center" is actually the "old right". Many past Republican Presidents, by today's standards, wouldn't even be considered Republican.

Obama summed up perfectly the hypocrisy of the current Republicans in office when his Tuesday speech was attacked by the House speaker, John Boehner, for failing to deal with the debt crisis. President Obama pointed out the following:

"That argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates." (Might I add - That's lower tax rates for the millionaires, whom are already paying an unprecedented low percentage of taxes).

(Report Comment)
mike mentor April 5, 2012 | 9:23 a.m.

@Ellis
There is no doubt in my mind that we are related somewhere back a ways... ;-) Nice post!

@Brian
I support Romney and have since day one because I think he is the one R that can bring down Obama. I am not going to agree with everything he does, but any of the R's are better for this country than any D. The deficit has grown more in Obama's 3+ years than it did in 8 under Bush. I know you won't hear that from the lamestream, just like you won't here about the current GSA scandal. Not even a blip about it on CNN. Their lead story is about an entertainer drug addict found face down in the tub... (The GSA spent almost a million dollars on a vegas trip including many pre trips to vegas to scout the location. Their budget has tripled in the last few years.) Yeah D's ! They are just like the people that come to your door with their hands out begging for money to help the orphans. Except the money goes straight to themselves and their buddies and the orphans don't see a dime. You would think that their schtick would be played out by now, but P.T. Barnum was aparently right when he said, "There is a sucker born every minute!"

I am against a mandate because it is unconstitutional and would set a very dangerous precedent of fed power. Are they going to make me buy an apple every time I buy a six pack of Schlafly's next? Or, will they make me buy whatever Al Gores latest "green" (cough, cough) company is selling to save the planet from certain destruction? (cough, cough)

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield April 5, 2012 | 9:35 a.m.

"That's lower tax rates for the millionaires"

The two Bush-ear tax cuts were across all brackets. That's why nearly half of all taxpayers owe no federal income taxes and why the vast majority of that 47% make the median income or less.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 5, 2012 | 9:55 a.m.

Brian Trenhaile - "Are you inferring the President said that?" I Heard Obama say that, in a campaign speech! You, a supporter apparently did not. A google search in effort to spoon feed information to leftists was not successful, but he considered our Constitution an obstruction to his efforts to provide us with his intended changes. Here is a later instance showing his regard for the Constitution,you might note the first blog comment interpreting what he meant.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/...

Your reference to R. Limbaugh was simplistic and amateurish. Sorry, but the rest is not much better.

Brian, "across the board" tax cuts leave money in hands of people. Their actions with the extra money, consumer purchases and INVESTMENT create financial activity that create legitimate need for new jobs thus an increase in revenue for the gov't. If R's are given the control, a badly needed revision of the tax code (will include cuts), as well as fiscal control of spending will provide revenues to balance our budget and reduce our debt. Obama and D's (as well as many around here) can never admit this. When it happens, people see how little need we have for liberalism. Perhaps you could read Heritage Foundation and CATO, rather than Think Progress and Daily KOS.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile April 5, 2012 | 10:59 a.m.

@ Frank Christian - You didn't find a link because he never said it. You're confusing a line "spoon-fed" to you by Limbaugh with reality. Speaking of him - Apparently it's OK for health insurance to cover the cost of his Viagra but when a woman wants birth control, names start flying.

You want me to look into other sources of information yet link to the conservative blog Gateway Pundit? Is that a joke? What's next? - A link to RedState?

And the "Trickle Down" theory still has traction with you? Obviously you weren't awake during the 8 years we had Bush to see just how great that worked out.

Since you conveinently brought up the Heritage Foundation; Did you know they supported the idea of an individual mandate? Now that a Dem passed it, they are twisting their own words to seem as if they oppose it. But, even Romney/Gingrich stated in a debate that's where the idea came from:

ROMNEY: "Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you."

GINGRICH: "That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation."

ROMNEY: "Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you."

Regrettable as it might be to you, this will be my final post on this topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and likewise for me. There's no sense in both of us continuing to paddle upstream.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 5, 2012 | 11:13 a.m.

Good! reading useless nonsense is a waste of time.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro April 5, 2012 | 1:28 p.m.

("We look forward to the day when all Americans will be able to have affordable health care.")
Here is the attitude which, destroys the progressive liberals, "champion of the poor" credibility.
First, illegal alien, illegal trespassing immigrants, undocumented criminal invaders from Mexico, are not Americans.
Also, "we" need to define what specific health goods, care and services "we" are referring to, the quality of that health care, who and how those health care commodities and services will be provided.
(For instance, I can afford low dose aspirin to help stay off a heart attack, but I do not have enough money in my pocket to pay for open heart surgery. I have enough money in my pocket to afford a nail clipper, but I do not have enough money in my pocket to pay a podiatrist for toe nail clipping. And in both cases, I am confident that access to a podiatrist or access to heart surgery exists.)
Also, To set up the private health insurance companies by ignoring the actuaries who determine profitability for those private insurance companies will force them out of business, setting up the federal government as the provider of health insurance, with whatever coverage parameters they determine. Thus a free market enterprise is destroyed and the federal government becomes more powerful over our bodies and cash flow.
The biggest problem with ObamaCare was the focus on insurance as the solution to health care. In fact, the problem of access for health care for Americans not insured for every imaginable health care product, care or service was not a problem prior to ObamaCare. There's always been access for the masses. It's just that the government's "safety net" of federal health programs is not being administered well enough. (Liken it to the government's administration of social security and if ObamaCare is deemed "constitutional" then it too will eventually fail.)
The focus of ObamaCare would of better served Americans if it focused on the multiple tier approach which we have all navigated to varying degrees before ObamaCare. It was this tier approach which needed tweaking, not a massive, missive, monster now being looked at by our Supreme Judges.
If the feds wanted to improve health care in America, a federal physician program, similar to the manner which we recruit armed forces, could have merged our VA health care/doctor program into HHS for those in need of government care, coupled with medicare/medicaid business-like improvements, would have been a good start. Church health care, nonprofit health care, private health care, personal out of pocket health care, and private/nonprofit health care insurance scenarios would then thrive.
Instead, they will wither away.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro April 5, 2012 | 1:30 p.m.

And as for using state automobile insurance requirement as the model for the federal mandate of health insurance for all, it's sheer nonsense! If it were not nonsense, then I would expect the Rose Nolen's of our world would be looking to destroy the automobile insurance industry by setting up a federal automobile insurance "business," so that every American could afford the best policy your neighbors could afford to buy for you.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro April 5, 2012 | 1:37 p.m.

("State mandate for auto insurance not the same as federal health insurance mandate")
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120...

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements