Supreme Court prepares to take on health care law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 14, 2011 1:17 p.m.

    Health care for all should be the goal. Insurance should have nothing to do with it.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 14, 2011 1:08 p.m.

    @Zona Zone

    "...Kennedy is the swing. I think he'll OK it...".

    My sentiments exactly.

    The thesis of your first sentence, in your second paragraph, is intriguing. I've had some success interpreting James Joyce. However, I must admit I've lost your message somewhere in the structure of that first sentence, which by the way would have made even Joyce proud.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 11:12 p.m.

    Funny... people believe the constitution was inspired area against helping their neighbor.

    Without your health you have nothing.

    If you get five dollars worth of service and you pay eight dollars, why the difference? That is the cost of insurance?

    Insurance began with Richard Nixon. Can good water flow from a bad well?

    Insurance will drop you if you have had a serious illness in the past, they will drop you if you incur a serious illness. Are they in business to help people or to make money?

    If you don't have any of this good stuff "insurance" then your neightbors can treat you like you have the plague. they can stand at a distance and say tsk tsk they should have had insurance. They can stand back as a person who is fully employed loses his home, job and way of life because it is okay in this country.

    The neighbors can add "they should have had insurance"

    What about right or wrong?

    The entire insurance industry is wrong, they make money on the backs of well people all the while pretending to be there for the sick.

    Like their inventor (Nixon) they lie.

  • Zona Zone Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2011 11:04 p.m.

    I doubt the Supreme Court took this case, as suggested by the obviously ill-informed report, at this time to insert itself into the election. These suits arose at a certain time that requires they be adjudicated now.

    This will turn, of course, on the commerce clause, which has gone through three phases: (1) Pre-"Switch in Time" Legislation regulating interstate commerce was scrutinized very carefully for Constitutionality; (2) Post-"Switch in Time" (i.e., after the Supreme Court was subdued by FDR's court-packing threats), it was given rational basis (as long as it was rationally related, the Court would allow it), (3) After Congress used that to legitimize nearly every regulation imaginable, the Supreme Court has now been applying an intermediate scrutiny--kind of in-between strict scrutiny and rational basis. Kennedy is the swing. I think he'll OK it (unfortunately)

    @ Screwdriver: First of all, shout-out to my fellow Arizonan!!! I, like you, despise insurance companies, but a private entity can't violate the Constitution--the Constitution is about the government's enumerated powers. No government actor, no Constitutional violation, even if it what the private actor is morally repugnant and heinous.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 13, 2011 9:21 p.m.

    America is financially strapped and everyone knows it.

    Regardless of who pays for health care it would be prudent to do what can be done to make it as affordable as possible. Here is a partial list of things that could be done:

    1. Tort Reform (loser pays variety). a full 20% of the nations health care bill is consumed by malpractice insurance. Another 20% goes to defensive medicine, doctors ordering tests only because they will need them as evidence if they are sued. We could save 40% (potentially) if we had loser pays.
    2. Use Medical Savings accounts and high deductible insurance. A $10,000 deductible policy is only about $50 a month. My employer spends about $14,000 a year on my insurance. Let me buy cheep insurance and put the rest in a MSA.
    3. Allow a cafeteria style policy. I am 55 and my wife and I don't think we need maternity benefits so why have coverage?

    The above ideas would help a lot. Each of them have been specifically outlaws by Obama Care.

    The Affordable Health Care act actually prohibits Affordable Health Care.

  • shaun_ SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 8:40 p.m.

    Instead of complaining about the health care law, improve it.

    Can I sue the federal reserve and opt out of the mouse trap they have put this country in?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 8:15 p.m.

    @A Guy with a brain

    "I'm particularly interested to hear from any liberal who supports Obamacare to hear how they justify this hypocritcal snobbery. "

    I support Obamacare though I wish the bill was more liberal. As far as the claim that Congress exempted itself... I don't have to justify it because it's a false claim that factcheck sites noted is a misrepresentation of the house and senate bills. The senate bill's final version even requires Congress to get health insurance in the exchanges which actually reduces their options (Grassley R-IA amendment) since they don't have access to the Feeral Employees Health Benefits Program anymore.

    @A voice of reason
    I want universal healthcare.I believe that we have a fundamental right to life and that part of that involves access to healthcare. Interpret that how you will.

  • Well Read SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 6:53 p.m.

    Am I logged in??

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 5:50 p.m.

    freewill: now THAT is something I completely agree with!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 5:44 p.m.

    This is the same crowd that went indignant as to immigration. See where that got Arizona State Senator Pierce.

  • freewill duchesne, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 4:30 p.m.

    and you have done an exellent job Mr. freedom in danger, If we could restore constitutional Government, We wouldnt be arguing about this today.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 3:13 p.m.


    I personally believe that this 'war' is the root of all of our political issues.

    People confuse the equality as defined in our constitution, being 'equal before the law' as meaning Marxist equality and equal entitlement. However the constitution protects freedom equally across the board. No one's free agency is more or less important than another's. Governments should preserve our right to freedom equally. When this is not done, I don't believe peace can exist. (as in D&C 134)

    "Equality of Outcome" vs "Equality of Opportunity" is what many in the philosophical world call it. I personally don't like the use of the word "opportunity" as many argue the two equality's are the same, and many argue they stand in contrast. If it was 'outcome vs agency' then the confusion wouldn't exist.

    Unless things are 50/50 equal, an inequality will exist. As long as equality is the premise, it must be forced or voluntarily given to be achieved. If free some won't give, so inequality will exist unless forced. But then the question is 'which do you prefer?' Equality by force or Freedom with inequality? Note: I've also argued on here that equality is a facade anyway. That if given the same measure, covetousness will still exist. If one takes my 'share' then equality ceases to exist anyway.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    Nov. 13, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    I really don't see how this will lower health care costs. Now that everybody is required to haven't, wouldn't all the insurance companies take advantage and increase their prices even more? I agree that health care costs are way too high, but this mandate is just plain stupid.

    The constitution says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are given to the state governments. Therefore, unless there is a clause specifically giving the federal government power to require everyone to have health care, it is unconstitutional.

  • scotu South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 2:41 p.m.

    @ A voice of Reason,

    Hmmmm.....that sounds like a war that was fought a long, long time ago in a galaxy that was far, far away - you know, the one WITHOUT Princess Leia that involved a "third of the host of heaven"? :)

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 2:21 p.m.

    Ron Paul is NOT our only hope. I really wish people would quit making him and Obama out to be our savior.

    The best person we can trust to save ourselves from any government is ourselves.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    atl134: you stated, "It's funny how people want the moochers to pay their fair share, and then when a system makes them do so via the mandate, they oppose it"

    I don't get what the problem is here. Sure, I want people to do their fair share, I want people to be honest, I want people to be kind human beings and treat everyone with respect. But there is a monumental difference between wanting what's right and forcing people to do it. While I believe that all who are able should give a portion of their own resources and time to help those in need, I absolutely do not believe in requiring it of them or forcing it out of them. That isn't funny, that's a belief in freedom. Do you not share this same belief?

  • freewill duchesne, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 1:49 p.m.

    Is anyone foolish enough to believe government mandated health insurance be struckdown or repealed? Ron Paul is our only hope, Government is the reason for skyrocketing health care costs. Before gov. involvement, docters went to peoples houses, The Bush congress appropriated millions of dollars to universities to not train doctors.Obamacare Romneycare, Whats the difference?

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 1:48 p.m.


    You forgot Obama's single greatest accomplishment:

    He killed 2,000,000 JOBS!

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Nov. 13, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    I'm curious....

    Does the fact that Democrats wrote the Obamacare law in such a way that Congress and the President do NOT have to use Obamacare themselves make anyone else out there want to vomit?, or is that blatant unfairness just ticking me off individually?

    I'd like to hear from those that it ticks off, too, as well as from anyone that is OK with this....I'm particularly interested to hear from any liberal who supports Obamacare to hear how they justify this hypocritcal snobbery.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Nov. 13, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    The core issue of Obamacare is whether the Constitution gives the right for politicians to FORCE Americans to buy a product.

    And that answer is a resounding "NO!"

    If politicians can make us buy health care then what will stop them from making it a law to buy a new pair of tennis shoes?

    Or how about a new car every 5 years?, all in the interest of spurring the American economy, of course. It's good for the country, you know....

    The point is that if we allow Congress to be able to make us buy a product then what will stop them from forcing us to buy any other product? Answer: absolutely nothing.

    The "Commerce Clause" doesn't even begin to justify this. It's not even close. Have you read the Commerce Clause? I have. It's less than 20 words long. Google it yourself.

    And BTW, car insurance is different: if you don't want to have to buy insurance, you retain the option of not buying a car.

    This is no such 'opt out' clause in Obamacare. Obamacare = unconstitutional.

    November 2012: Our Last Chance To Save America

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    It's funny how people want the moochers to pay their fair share, and then when a system makes them do so via the mandate, they oppose it... and then support Romney. If Obama supported puppies Republicans would suddenly become kitten fans.

    Nov. 13, 2011 12:46 p.m.

    I am glad that the Supreme Court will have the chance to deliberate this very contentious issue. I, for one, am glad that the Court has representatives of several judicial points of view since I think this strengthens rather than dimishes the final decision. Democracy (or a republic, if you prefer) very much needs the diversity of various points of view to create a fabric of basic freedoms and flexibilty. Conversely, freedom suffers when only one point of view dominates to the point of disallowing any fresh new resolutions to problems. I believe there is a big difference between taking a principled stand according to one's beliefs on the one hand, and adhering to political orthodoxy as though party is a religion on the other. We see too much of that religious orthodoxy in the middle East and other places, where it can be paralyzing. While I do not see the Affordable Care Act as perfect, I can see what reasoning lies behind the efforts to contain healthcare costs. It is undoubtably one of the great challenges for our country, but I still believe it can be solved (perhaps as a states issue) without demonizing those who have tried.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    The issue the court must ultimately address is whether we have free agency with the consequence of inequality, or whether that choice is taken from us in favor of forcing the same circumstance on everyone.

    Despite the conservative court we have, it's times like this I wish Rehnquist was still on board.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 12:06 p.m.

    The Court's decision will determine whether there still remains a chance for liberty to survive or whether we have chosen tyranny! Institutionalizing evil (abortion, gay marraige, war)and legitimizing compulsion (Doing away with God given individual and states'rights)will only increase suffering. Obama Care is not about care; it is about power.

    Nov. 13, 2011 11:59 a.m.

    Bob P : may I respectfully remind you of just a few other things the President has accomplished ?
    -Signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that will reduce both countries' arsenal by a third
    -Created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keeep nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists (an idea put forth by Reagan years before)
    -Gave the mission objective and command to kill Osama Bin Laden
    -Expanded troop levels in the military and ordered an overhaul of wasteful spending in the Pentagon, including the cancellation of the expensive F-22 program
    -Signed into law a financial reform bill to prevent some of the same abuses that got us into this mess in the first place (including the expensive subsidy to banks acting as middlemen in student loans)
    -Expanded the CHIPS program to cover another 4 million kids who have no healthcare
    -Got rid at long last of the unfair DADT program which took away thousands of our most needed Arabic language translators from the military, (not to mention the disrespect DADT imposed upon some of our nation's brave soldiers)
    _I could go on, but space is limited. Check for yourself how much Utah received in stimulous funding.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 13, 2011 11:10 a.m.

    to BobP | 10:00 a.m. Nov. 13, 2011

    Anybody but Obama is the key word.


    Also anyone but Romney, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Bacman, Santorum and Paul. I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of them. I care too much about my country to inflict any of them on it.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Nov. 13, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    The conservative majority on the court looks good for a decision on the only thing Obama pushed through in 3 years so far. Anybody but Obama is the key word.,

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2011 6:33 a.m.

    What they should be deciding is if it's constitutional to let insurance companies overcharge thier customers to pay for those that don't have insurance.