Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

[pnewton]

The constitution grants powers to the general government, one of the most important is to provide the general defense. The methods used to provide that defense is decided on by the executive, in conjunction with the legislative.

Then you are establish two standards for Constitutional powers, one for defense, one for public welfare. This is probably why you see the public welfare as unconstitutional. However, courts decry a double standard. From a judicial point of view, one standard (say for defense) provides the template for how general welfare is addressed.

But to be sure providing for the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Congress gets to choose what is best for the general welfare, as long as no other provision of the Constitution is violated.

 

[JonNC]

Then you are establish two standards for Constitutional powers, one for defense, one for public welfare. This is probably why you see the public welfare as unconstitutional. However, courts decry a double standard. From a judicial point of view, one standard (say for defense) provides the template for how general welfare is addressed.

I haven’t established anything. I’m just expressing what was originally intended, even by Federalists like Madison, not to mention the anti federalists.
Your claim of a double standard intentionally discounts the role of the states. The tenth amendment puts powers not enumerated in the states’ jurisdiction. So, there is no double standard. Just federalism.

But to be sure providing for the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Congress gets to choose what is best for the general welfare, as long as no other provision of the Constitution is violated.

And since what most of what is referred to is not an enumerated power, it is in the purview of the states.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It hasn’t been detrimental to the millions of people with pre-existing conditions who couldn’t even get individual insurance policies before the ACA. A lot of those people were trapped in jobs that they didn’t dare leave for fear of losing their insurance

But is this an adequate justification for turning the medical system on its head? People take employment for all sorts of reasons and it isn’t always what they would “rather” do. Medical insurance is certainly one of the reasons some people take particular jobs. And, after sixty days, they have to be covered for pre-existing.

I really don’t think making major changes in government and the taxes on certain people should be driven by my job preferences.

But one of the things nobody ever really seems to address is whether government takeover of healthcare is affordable in a society like ours. We have 20 million or so illegals here and perhaps a few million more asylum-seekers who don’t pay for their own care. People express derision over their use of ER, but that one visit to the ER costs $1,000 or more. Does anybody know whether each of them visits the ER at least once/year? I doubt it.

Does anybody know how many of them return to their countries of origin for any kind of longer-term care? I doubt that too.

it’s easy to think about giving other peoples’ money away, but do we know for sure those other people have enough money to do what we want them to do?

 

[Stephen_C]

No That is not what I was talking about or saying. What free stuff do you talk about. To qualify for Medicaid in most states. Your income must be below a livable wage. I know this. My Son also has type 1 diabetes. The only “free” stuff he wants is insulin. Still cannot figure out how a vial of this stuff costs about 3 bucks to produce and costs the consumer around 300. Free markets for you I suppose.

 

[Theo520]

No That is not what I was talking about or saying. What free stuff do you talk about. To qualify for Medicaid in most states. Your income must be below a livable wage. I know this. My Son also has type 1 diabetes. The only “free” stuff he wants is insulin. Still cannot figure out how a vial of this stuff costs about 3 bucks to produce and costs the consumer around 300. Free markets for you I suppose.

Insulin is expensive because of Govt regulation, not because of free markets. If I recall the price has increased 1,000% in the past couple decades, in the US. Not so much in Canada, Mexico, etal. You should direct your anger where it actually matters.

Illegals still qualify/obtain loads of free stuff.

• free education
• free food (SNAP is widely utilized by illegals)
• free healthcare for their kids
• free treatment in ER
• free legal services

 

[Ridgerunner]

I can’t say this is generally true, but there is often a difference between a drug obtainable in a foreign country and here. For one thing, doctors here will prescribe “top of the line” every time out of fear of malpractice. I had occasion to investigate Canadian drugs for a company, and those drugs are not the same even when they’re labeled the same. And they’re not made in Canada or the U.S. even if they’re U.S. patented drugs. They’re made in places like Bangladesh and aren’t quite the same thing as what’s produced here.

A lot of “new” drugs are actually new combinations of old drugs or combinations of old and new. They act somewhat differently a good part of the time, but not drastically so. But the new combinations are much, much more expensive. I remember one drug not available in Canada that was a novel combination of two old drugs. The former, available only in the U.S., was really expensive, the latter two were cheap. The difference was that you had to take the two older ones instead of just one newer one. But you had to remember to take both of the older ones or there would be adverse consequences. Naturally, doctors here prescribed the new one rather than the two older ones.