Comments about ‘Current court challenge of health care law is the 'one to watch'’

The US Supreme Court will give the final answer and right now its 5 to 4 against Obamacare.

The courts are heavily politcised in favor of corpratists. That mostly favors repubicans but is issue based on profits not constitutionality.

So while main street conservatives count thier chickens of winning this fight they may find that the corpratist majority of both the house, senate and judicial branches favor mandatory health insurance coverage.

The only thing they will oppose is actually requiring much health care coverage for the mandatory purchase of insurance. This is a huge boon to the insurance agencies as long as they don't have to give in much.

"...5 to 4...".

A "strict constructionist" would say the Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be the political rubber stamp of either party?

or

should "...5 to 4..." just be referred to as "judicial activism" (judges who seek to enact legislation through court rulings)?

The attorney who stated that the mandate is "unprecedented" is incorrect. In July of 1798, Congress (which still included a large number of the founding fathers) passed and President John Adams signed -An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

What I'm wondering is there's all this hubub over everyone has to be insured, blah, blah, blah. Why? Becuase health care is expensive. Why is no one looking at ways to make health care more affordable?

There are several answers to that question, but personally I think the public would be better served if employers did stop offering health care ins., and the ins. companies would be forced to appeal to the public which would mean more affordable rates to start with.

I agree with SLC gal's first comment--there really is a contradiction between "affordable healthcare" and "universal coverage" given the status quo. We need to address costs, first! Yet, we are doing what we can to continue to raise the costs of medical care.

@Joseph2,
I just read the act it does not force the sailor to buy insurance. It was the first workmans comp program the owner of the ship payed in to the program or they would not get their shipping license renewed. the master of the ship had to twenty cents per seaman quarterly. don't twist it to fit your views

Last I checked health care is not a right. The Government has no right to tell me or you what to buy what to eat were to live what to drive. This is about freedom of choice of true liberty. Sorry but getting something free from the government is never free there are not strings attached but enslaving chains fixed to it that will never come off!

SLC gal: agreed. Until we are making the cost of health care less, it will not cost less. By regulating insurance, the government's only option of lower health costs is by reimbursing less for services. Many physicians already don't except Medicaid (including our office) because what is reimbursed doesn't even come close to covering the cost of the service performed. Lower Medicare payments also limit those who will see Medicare insured patients.

The end result is that we may all be insured, but only quacks and incompetents will see us because only the government will pay them for their services.