| |


Contact Kenneth Rapoza


Investing 45,146 views

ObamaCare Is Constitutional; Get Over It





























Why would you?

Only a radical would.







Post Your Comment

Please or sign up to comment.


  • DaveR DaveR 2 years ago

    Yes, the SC ruled. But your headline “get over it” is very insulting. Prohibition was constitutional and then it wasn’t. Being ruled constitutional does not mean that the metal midgets in Washington have passed something that will work.

    This is a bill that is partially popular and not popular in totality. Why? there is a general distrust of having the government too much involved in our lives. People really hate to be told what to do and this 2,700 page bill will do a lot of “telling”.

    Many can reasonably anticipate what is likely to come down the pike. It is possible to take action before the you know what hits the fan.

  • I get a kick out of reading articles like this one. The author’s argument is that we don’t like ObamaCare because of a rallying cry and everyone should like it because insurance is cheaper and it saved my daughter.

    I suppose recent polls explain the existence of this article. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/poll-most-want-obamacare-opponents-to-move-on/
    People were against it before they were for it? I don’t deny that people are unengaged and ill-informed; we rely on representative government. Those representatives that we support have lost and we are tired.

    As to the arguments of our author, the details that he admits to not knowing are the reasons we don’t support ObamaCare. ObamaCare is half funded by taxation of returns on investment capital. The other half is funded through the printing of Treasury Bonds sold to the Chinese, as ObamaCare double counts many billions of MediCare savings. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577346332422834276.html Note: Every defense of double counting available cites the convention and the fact that Republicans use the same convention. Those are political, not budget, arguments.) ObamaCare might have lended police power to the federal government with the result that the government could come after to me in order to meet it’s $100TN in unfunded obligations, but Justice Roberts took care of that.

    Are you really enjoying this better life with health care and generous safety net? The lot of it is unfunded so what is there to feel safe about? I was just today barred from commenting on The Washington Post (stkschw), a badge that I will wear forever with deep pride, because I said Thomas Jefferson wasn’t racist, at least in the sense that we use that word today. This modern society can’t graduate most black youth from high school (Celebrating 65%? http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/education&id=8697126) and Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence in his day. If Thomas Jefferson were some white trash racist, then what would that say about New Yorkers? (Hint: try and contrast the fate of a slave in 18th century Virginia with that of a dropout in 21st century New York. Don’t they both end up in chains?) I’m with Thomas Jefferson so, according to The Washington Post, I am not with many of you in this regard. Hence, the pride. Look at yourself, WaPo.

    Maybe the author should take a look at how real the welfare state could be. If he wants to opine about the war for justice against the wealthy and our dead forefathers then I’m sure we’ll all be interested in what he has to say.

  • westernfan2 westernfan2 2 years ago

    Wow- where to start?
    First, one huge problem with Obamacare is that does little to control or drive down actual healthcare costs. During first Presidential campaign the initiative morphed from “Healthcare Reform” to “Healthcare INSURANCE Reform”. The resulting law is all about who pays for the insurance.
    Second, who pays for it is really the basis for the opposition to the law- and the mandate/penalty/tax is only part of it. Of greater concern to many of the wealthiest and influential is are the additional taxes on personal income over $200k, and the 25% increase on unearned income that goes with it (15% > 20%) Lets not pretend the crux of the debate has much to do with constitutionality.
    Thirdly, most folks can and do see Doctors, even without insurance. Your local ER is stacked with folks without insurance or the means to pay for their care. Of course, this needs to be addressed- but we can do better than ACA.
    Fourth, when young, healthy folks figure out that they’re better off in the long run to pay the penalty/tax, and invest the difference between that and what unneeded healthcare insurance would cost in an IRA or healthcare savings account until they actually NEED healthcare later in life, the whole plan pretty much collapses. (what, healthcare providers are suddenly going to start denying care to the uninsured? unlikely)
    Fifth, even if all the healthcare is paid for one way or another, who is going to provide it? If pretty much everyone HAS healthcare insurance, and as alluded earlier, folks that haven’t seen a healthcare professional due to lack of funds or insurance start demanding healthcare services, isn’t that going to overwhelm our healthcare system almost immediately?
    Lastly, during the healthcare debate prior to it’s passing, any number of actual cost saving initiatives were discussed. Whether ACA stands, falls, or survives in some other form, why aren’t these ideas being actively pursued? Wouldn’t we all be better off if healthcare costs could be contained?

  • Linda Kutzer Linda Kutzer 2 years ago

    I am 57 years old and brought my two children up by myself without health insurance. When we needed medical care I would pay out of pocket or make payments. I am opposed to anyone forcing me to buy insurance or to get medical care that I do not want! I beleive that insurance companies have contributed greatly to the skyrocketing costs as well as medical professionals relying on high tech testing. . .sometimes not necessary testing. Administrative costs to process insurance paperwork has also contributed to costs.

    It used to cost me $30. a visit to go to the chiroprator. Now that they accept insurance the cost of a visit is $60. and your copay if you have insurance is. . . $30. That’s right. Same with the dentist. The copays equal about what it costs before they accepted insurance.

    There are other reasons for the high costs very little of it having to do with the success rate of the rolls royce treatments. I personally would never have cancer treatment. I prefer alternatives which are not covered under insurance. It is my right to make my own choices and not the government.

    People are incredibly creative and I believe could come up with things like clinic membership or voucher systems for catastrophic care without allowing the government or the insurance companies power over your body and decisions.

    I know my ideas are different. But I should be allowed to have them. I do not wish to be forced to pay a tax for no service ( I will refuse to buy the healthcare . . .government mandated insurance). I can not believe so many people would be willing to do so. Amazing.

  • westernfan2 westernfan2 2 years ago

    So how much better off would we all be if all the uninsured folks, paying for healthcare out of pocket were charged the same deeply discounted prices that the insurance companies have negciated with the healthcare providers? Just think, no huge complex healthcare law, no new taxes, no divisive time wasting debates- just lower healthcare costs.

  • Bruce Wing Bruce Wing 2 years ago

    all bull. the aim of the bill is a single payer system and the result is degradation of choice and quality. good luck finding a physician or specialist. keep dreaming. we will delete the bill in Congress or defund it – but it will fall. the decision came from left field – a pander instead of a deliberation.

  • I laugh because the author actually believes that the insurance companies and hospitals are going to automatically pass savings onto the consumer instead of putting them in their respective pockets.

    When, in the history of anything, has that EVER happened? You’re telling me insurance companies are going to take windfall profits and turn them over to the consumer – even in the face of NO competition for their services? Really?

    ObamaCare is a non-starter because it doesn’t address the ONLY problem in healthcare – costs. It does nothing to drive down costs. So that $1200 surgical needle is still gonna cost $1200. That $2500 surgical stapler is still gonna cost $2500. And the year over year increase of insurance is going to keep going up up up.

  • LeeElkin LeeElkin 2 years ago

    Those who oppose Obamacare tend to give a sub-par libertarian argument against the mandate. But that argument is unacceptable. http://uncertainrisk.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/why-i-cant-accept-the-general-libertarian-argument-against-obamacare/

  • Bob Geary Bob Geary 2 years ago

    Please don’t paint all concerns about government controlled health care with the same radical brush. Many of us are simply concerned that govenment entitlements always ALWAYS end up costing much more than was projected when they were passed, and this one has been passed during a time when government spending is completely out of control already.

    Instead of addressing our concerns by laying out a detailed, complete plan that shows some plausible means to eliminate the budget deficits and actually start paying down the national debt, our politicians continue to pass one costly program after another, while actively and willfully deceiving the people at every turn. Recent examples are the president repeatedly telling the american people that the deficits can be eliminated and we can start paying down the debt if only the top 2% (which he continually and wrongfully categorizes as ‘millionairs and billionairs) will only ‘pay their fair share’. This even though he knows very well that the actual increased receipts from the proposed tax increases would be insignificant with respect to the size of the deficits and the debt. The republicans aren’t much better when they imply that the proposed tax increase will almost exclusively impact ‘job creators’ and ‘small businesses’.

  • Liz Liz 2 years ago

    You idiot. You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Have you even read the Constitution. Of course we’re supposed to pay taxes and have public schools, it’s IN the Constitution. But nowhere does it say that we are supposed to follow an invasive, fascist rule that tells
    you to buy something. Did you know that the FOunders were against invasive government? That’s kind of the point of the checks and balances. Just because the Supreme COurt, which is actually appointed partially by the President, decides something is constitutional, doesn’t mean it is. Everyone knows that the libs abuse the general welfare clause and the commerce clause to make it mean whatever the heck they want.
    And Romneycare is a state thing, not a national, statist progressive ruling that forces the whole nation to do something that is stupid and unwanted. Are you really not even smart enough to see that if ALL health care providers everywhere give care to EVERY citizen, they are going to go bankrupt? I can’t believe I even have to explain this to you…