Liberals vs. ObamaCare
This may be the exception that proves the rule, but as George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin reports, at least one cohort of liberal activists has come out against ObamaCare and filed a friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate. Their reason? They'd rather see the U.S. with a single payer health care system. As Somin writes:
The organizations represented in this brief (Single Payer Action, It's Our Economy, and a group of fifty physicians who support a single payer system) do seem to believe that getting rid of the mandate would help pave the way for a single payer system – though the legal arguments in their brief don't rely on this idea. So there are at least some single-payer advocates who want to abolish the mandate and believe that this will help their cause in the long run.
Read all about it here. Read about the conservative case for upholding the individual mandate here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
hay guise how r u lets strike down obamacare mandate
hay guise how r u now lets institute state-run healthcare
hay guise how r u ur not cooperating with the great people's plan so off to guantanamanmanmo bay with you insurectionist!
Excellent orin impersonation.
+ 3 o's.
Tired of feeling like we don't have a place where we can just be ourselves? Interested in meeting other like-minded folks who are Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual or Bi-friendly? The goal of ===bicupid*n/e/t====is to provide a fun, safe space for all Bisexual/Queer/Pansexual and Bi-friendly Transgender, Lesbian, Gay and "Straight-But-Not-Narrow" folks to find out about great Bi-inclusive stuff to do, gather and interact .
They'd rather see the U.S. with a single payer health care system.
That's not an especially unique criticism from the left.
As complicated and corporate and expensive as ObamaCare is, at this point I think single payer might actually be a better system.
Yup, it would actually be an improvement over the current health care system.
I wouldn't trust a doctor who supports a single payer system.
+1
None of my doctors do.
This was on HDNet's Dan Rather Reports a few nights ago. It was demonstrably one-sided, with the once head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, dancing around his love of nationalized health care.
He did the same biased reporting on his show last year about public education, trotting out some hack and revering her as an expert because she agreed with his world views.
I can't believe Dan Rather would stoop to such tactics just to promote his own ideas in the guise of news!
For anyone interested in refuting a few disingenuous arguments,
here is an opinion piece written by a hospital CEO assuring us that high health care costs are caused by greedy insurance companies forcing hospitals to take less money.
Bonus points: he extolls the virtues of the super efficient Medicare model.
I think their brief is more likely to help get the law upheld.
Sadly, because the word "general" has been deleted by SCOTUS from the phrase "general welfare", there is no dispute that the feds can tax your money away to give to whoever they claim is deserving, so a full-on socialized medical system would be upheld by SCOTUS.
By arguing that the feds have the power to do far more than just a piddly little mandate, they pave the way for the Court to uphold the mandate.
If someone is really a progressive and not simply a Democratic Party shill, he will be against Obamacare, since the whole program is just a taxpayer funded subsidy for the insurance industry.
Not at all. Plenty of progressives were quite up front that they supported Obamacare because it would destroy businesses throughout the healthcare and healthcare financing field (destroying businesses being good in and of itself, of course) and pave the way for socialized medicine.
How is this going to destroy the health insurance companies? They are getting millions of new customers who previously had opted not to get health insurance because the cost was too high. Now those people will be forced by the government to buy health insurance products. It's no coincidence that the health care industry was lobbying for Obamacare and their stock prices are way up since the bill passed.
Their destruction will come via three features of ObamaCare: (1) mandated issue, (2) mandated benefits, and (3) price controls. The first two mean they cannot control their costs. The last means they cannot raise their prices enough to cover their uncontrolled costs.
Big Health was lobbying for OCare because (1) they are political idiots and (2) they fell for the "its inevitable" line and figured the best they could do was try to influence it rather than kill it.
Wrong. There are no price controls in Obamacare.
Au contraire. ObamaCare gives HHS the authority to reject insurance rate hikes, as well as dictating how insurance companies can use premiums once they are collected.
Really? I see HHS complaining about "excessive" rate hikes but without the the power to reverse them.
Definitely, same with a lot of other issues. I've often asked true believers I know from college how they could possibly support the Democrats when they are god awful on so many things including things I don't agree with them on like healthcare and places that should be common ground like the Wars on Terror and Drugs. Same goes with conservatives who support big government Republicans. Partisan hackery is disgusting.
All you need is a D or R in front of your name to get those votes. Policies don't matter.
If a D ran on the platform that he was going to:
1) Eliminate welfare
2) Outlaw abortion
3) Allow anyone to buy guns
4) Force gay people into religious rehabilitation that converts them to straights
and his R opponent stood on the platform of:
1) Government funded abortions
2) Completely outlawing guns
3) Raising taxes on the "1%"
4) Give marriage licenses to gay couples
Then Ds would still vote for the D candidate and Rs would still vote for the R candidate. Platform doesn't matter. It's just your party.
Bingo. The only--only--thing that matters is beating the other TEAM.
Principles? Intellectual honesty? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
accept when it doesnt happen that way which is like 90% of the tim
nice try try again
All you need is a D or R in front of your name to get those votes. Policies don't matter.
Outlaw any mention of party affiliation in electioneering, including on the ballot. If the voter doesn't care enough to know, TFB.
I'm for politicians declaring their political affiliations, but I think that ballots should remove their political affiliations as well as removing the "Vote all Democrat" or "vote all Republican" options at the top of the ballots. It would make people actually have to research their candidates.
The only research they will do is to find out the name of their TEAM's candidate. Removing political affiliations will have zero effect.
Partisans are partisan morons. What are you going to do?
Epi, I know they will. But it'll make the folks actually have to do some work.
We have a "Vote all Libertarian" button here in Texas which is nice. Saves a lot of time since I usually know the few places I will deviate from that.
Getting parties off of the ballot seems like a good idea. The rest might have some first amendment issues.
Upon reflection, I agree.
I think this is completely wrong.
You think my premise is wrong or you think that it is wrong because it's true?
I think the premise is wrong. We wouldn't have terms like RINO, Blue Dog Democrat, etcetera if this were the case. Joe Lieberman would not have been elected, for example, if this theory held.
I'm not saying they would get their nominations for the position. The party would definitely try to get someone else in.
But your average partisan voter, seeing "R" here and "D" here would pick the party candidate because the opposing team must be defeated.
Now, this isn't the case 100% of the time with 100% of partisan voters. But, more often than not, that is the case. Hell, go over to Fox News. Most of the people on there don't really care much for Romney, but they say they have to vote for whoever the party selects in order to beat Obama. It would not matter if they nominated Satan himself (I know he doesn't exist). The D president must be kicked out at all costs!
I wouldn't say it's completely wrong. It's an exaggeration with some element of truth to it. The primaries are designed to eliminate any candidates who fall into the exaggerated examples.
What I think is more true is that Democrats are 80% about redistribution of wealth and any Democrat that professes that has the potential to do well regardless of his/her stand on other issues. Violate that and you WILL NOT be elected to anything by the Democratic party.
For Republicans, it appears to be a roughly 50/50 mixture of militarism and low taxes that are the core issues and that makes up a similar 80% importance. Violate that and you WILL NOT be elected to anything by the Republican party.
+1000
So what's stopping these 50 doctors from treating their patients free of charge?
Capitalism. That bastard.
'cause that wouldn't be... fair. They gotta charge them so they can generate tax revenue to send to the IRS. If they just did it for free, the government would not get enough tax money!
And Dr. Paul is evil for not accepting Medicare/Medicaid money, but still treating those patients. Snubbing government money should be a crime!
They probably want to get paid.
I don't favor government provided or run health care, but let's not pretend that it is some sort of great unknown animal. And it is hardly inconceivable that some doctors think that single payer woudl be a better system (and think that wealth transfers through taxation are OK) even though I think they are wrong.
O.T.: Haven't been following comment threads lately due to a crazy schedule, so I have no idea if anyone has mentioned this...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....cides.html
That isn't what this phrase means!
That is very interesting. I don't think I have ever heard anyone use that correctly. I always just thought it was one of those stupid phrases that people use because they are stupid and don't think about what they are saying. As it is usually used, it makes no sense at all. An exception woudl disprove a rule in most cases.
The easy example to keep in your head is traffic rules. For example: "No Parking 4-6 PM". This means that the general rule is that parking is permitted, but this stated exception proves that rule.
I always took it be an application of the old meaning for "proof". A gun with a proof mark has been tested and has passed. "Proofing" often involved testing to destruction, as well, of some samples.
Thus, an exception "proves" the rule by testing it; that is, the rule applies to its limits, as shown by the exception.
Same thing, just a different way of getting there.
Yeah, its almost always misused, these days.
Hopefully, it will be properly used in the future.
"bulletproof" and similar words come from the practice of testing plate armor by firing a bullet at it. The mark made by the bullet was the proof that the armor was tested to perform as claimed.
So, if something is idiot-proof, that means that an idiot was fired at it and couldn't penetrate?
I learn something here every day.
Seriously, this issue (exceptions demonstrating that there is an implied default rule) comes up periodically in my practice around contracts and regs. I'm going to start using this, correctly.
Obamacare vs single payer is kinds like having a choice between a ruptured aorta or a ruptured vein in your skull.
I just don't get some people's obsession with single payer. Even if government subsidized universal health care were a good idea, there are many models already in use that are way better than single payer. Would these people really rather have British health care than French or German?
Actually, French is more single-payer-ish. British is not single-payer. It's a National Health System where the government is the provider, not the payer to private (etc) providers).
They are obsessed with control of heatlh care, and single payer gives them the most control (up until full socialization, which of course that idiot who used to run HHS for Obama was fully in favor of).
What's your point? You said "there are many models already in use that are way better than single payer. Would these people really rather have British health care than French or German?" Which implied that the UK has single-payer, and that France does not. When in actuality the UK has something else (more government control, yes it's true) and France has something more like single-payer. Your point that you prefer capitalism to either single-payer or nationalized health care was clear, but your examples were off a little bit.
No, he didn't. That was a different person.
The single payer fools just need to be patient. The law was written to fail.