The Real Conclusion from last week’s health care legislation court ruling.

2010 December 20

by Michael Parmele

Did anyone else draw the same conclusion that I did after the court last week found the individual health care mandate unconstitutional?

That conclusion being, …the only way that we can end the debacle of “pre-existing conditions” is to make sure that everyone is covered.  The only way to make sure every one is covered is to somehow “require” them to get insurance.  Since the Commerce Clause does not allow the Federal government to require its citizens to purchase a for profit product, the only way to insure that every citizen has health care is to provide it and finance it through taxes…The court’s decision last week is yet another reason and guidepost on the way to a single payer, government health insurance, Medicare for everyone.  Why can’t the country see that’s the best way to go?

This is another conversation starter…let’s hear it.  Am I right? Misguided?  Let’s hash this out, Moose!

In order that the debate is clearly framed.  Here is the position that I claim:

According to VAST research sources, a single payer health care system, basically Medicare for All, is the single best way to reform the American Health Insurance paradigm.  Enrolling every American in Medicare will not only bring Medicare into financial security, but will cost the American people, on average, less than the current, for profit system.

One of the single greatest resources in this debate is Dr. Aaron Carroll, an unabashed single payer supporter, M.D., and pragmatist.

So let’s have it, is my claim true or false?  Come on, Moose, it’s been a while since we’ve thrown down and if we all agree on this, why do we have some special understanding that the rest of the country lacks?

Start Monday off right, by thinking and discussing issues facing your nation, state, city, and community…what else have we got to do this week?

And no fair criticizing this discussion invitation for lack of sources or citations or links.  I would think that we all know the information at this point and if you are not up to speed on things, a quick google search will get you there.

Please, however, back up your comments throughout the discussion comments, preferably through hyperlink, as will I.

3 Responses leave one →
  1. Mankindof permalink
    December 20, 2010

    Ancillary point: the provision of the Act which required each individual to buy private healthcare insurance was the one provision the Democrats did NOT want in the bill; it was a concession to the insurance lobby that the Dems gave away in exchange for certain other provisions the insurance lobby didn’t want. So does anyone else find it ironic that the VA Attorney General wanted so badly to repeal the whole Act, but only ended up with the one worst part struck down, but the rest of the liberal/commie/fascist/progressive Obamacare remains intact under that ruling?

    As to your main point, uh, yeah. That’s why the original bills had a single-payer system in them. Obama’s main motivation for healthcare reform is the memory of what his mother went through. The whole pre-existing condition problem has been the main industry-demon he tried to face down, and his answer was a single-payer system. Ultimately, he compromised (though he clearly didn’t need to, since the Dems passed the bill without Repub support anyway) based on the premise that something is better than nothing, and maybe the next revision can include a single-payer option.

  2. December 21, 2010

    I actually agree with the decision that prevents the Federal government from making us purchase something from a moderately-regulated supplier. Hopefully, this will result in an introduction of a single-payer or at least a “public” medicare for all type of option in the near future.

    …and yes, I do find it ironic that the only part of the plan found unconstitutional is the part that was put in by the insurance lobby (who had no business having the access that they did during the whole of the debate).

    More later.

  3. December 22, 2010

    Mankindof,
    But Obama didn’t propose single payer in any meaningful way. In fact, he specifically said that, (I’m confident enough to quote)”If we were starting from scratch, single payer would be the way to go, but we aren’t starting from scratch so we need to modify the existing system to work better.” That’s not proposing single payer, that’s opening negotiations with the compromise position. But that wasn’t the point of my post, actually. I was thinking in more non partisan, legal, procedural sort of sense. Almost in the sense of a formal debate. It makes sense in my mind but follow me on this:

    The goal was specified as “modifying the existing system to work better” and work toward that goal produced the health reform legislation which passed. One of the key components of that legislation is the mandate (with which I agree, by the way, it may have been a compromise to the insurance companies, but the insurance companies were right on that part of the debate, you can’t ask insurance companies to do away with pre-existing conditions exclusions and not require everyone to have insurance. Why would I get insurance before I got sick if I can get it any time? Why would anyone? So, the mandate has to be there for this to work. Now it gets struck down by the court and one of the legs of the three legged stool that is this legislation falls away.
    So my point was, why don’t we take this court decision as simply more ammunition for single payer? Because ALL THE STUDIES say it’s the best way to go, FOR EVERYONE and since one of the primary pillars upon which the plan to make the system better without abandoning it turns out to be unconstitutional (which I agree, Roy, the mandate is unconstitutional. The government cannot force me to purchase a privately owned for profit product. If We, the People, decide that something is so important that everyone needs to do it, we call that government and there is a tax for it) I say it’s now time to concede that the only way to make this work better at all IS to abandon the existing system and start over. The health insurance system in this country was not created by our Founders nor written in stone, it is an arbitrary construct that can be amended or discarded at our whim.

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS