Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
if I fail to get health insurance, is that activity or inactivity? in the aggregate us who fail to buy it, hahaha, we get ER care for free. And the extra padding of your bills this causes causes or helps cause ...call them effects...on interstate commerce. Like, oh spending 17% of GDP on health care or 2/3 all bankruptcies being for health care bills, most from people who thought they were insured, hardy har har. But ohmygod if you regulate the decision to not buy health insurance the relationsihp between the individual and our national limited government is changed. it's not limited anymore. whereas the word "limited" is one we read into the commerce clause and the whole damn constitution. so you see, the city of seattle can regulate your shit, but the usa gummint can't regulate 33 million people without coverage when this impacts the other 270 million up the wazzoo. because that would be regulating inactivity, you see!
note to self: next time they institute draft, try to remain "inactive" and see if that gives me exemption. when the wildfire is raging thru my property stay "inactive" don't fight it -- and don't let the city mandate you have to buy a bucket and pail for fire protection and keep it on your property. inactivity rocks. you must consent to being regulated or its Just Not Fair.
I'm just messing with you. I like what you wrote and how you wrote it.
This was not a slam-dunk; it was a 5-4 vote. Roberts finally just couldn't stomach being quite that mean.
@Goldy: Keep believing the Democratic-party-machine line if you will, but the goal of Obamacare was to extend and expand the for-profit health sector's protection racket for another decade or two, not to protect Medicare, certainly not to provide affordable or cost-effective care, and most certainly not to be the first step toward universal cost-effective care. We can't achieve universal, cost-effective care without breaking some major Big Health rice bowls, and there are no provisions in Obamacare for doing that. To the contrary, the ACA actually further entrenches Big Health and gives them an even bigger cut of the economy (from 18% now to over 20% by 2019). I don't see how this will make real reform easier to achieve down the road. In the meantime, keep an eye on those impending cuts to Medicare rates and how they affect seniors.