E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of nearly all of President Barack Obama’s health reform plan is ethically very good news. Excluding tens of millions of Americans who had no access to health insurance because they could not afford it or because no one would insure them because they were too sick has long been the single greatest ethical failure of American health care.
The Supreme Court has now affirmed, admittedly on purely legal grounds, that imposing a mandate on each of us to pay for health insurance for all of us can happen. But Obama and the administration cannot become complacent. They still have a huge challenge before them — selling the American people on the morality of insuring access to every American to health care by mandating that we all pay.
Critics of the Affordable Care Act have convinced America that the Obama plan stinks. The government mandate was their best bogeyman in stirring distrust of health reform. They had placed all their chips on a "shock and awe" strategy of having the Supreme Court blow away Obamacare’s mandate in one gigantic negative decision. That did not happen.
The critics will now shift gears and start to fight a guerilla war to chip away at the plan. They will complain about cost, government meddling in the doctor-patient relationship and reopen talk of death panels. The only way to meet these criticisms is for the administration and its allies to do what they still have not done — convince the American people, not of the legality of health reform as happened today but of its morality.
Poll: Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling on health care law?
The moral case involves three key arguments. First every American deserves equality of opportunity. The only way to ensure that is to ensure access to basic health care. Just as is true of food and education, you need access to basic health care to compete and flourish in a free market.
Second, no one should go without health care just because they are sick. Excluding people because of pre-existing medical problems is simply immoral.
And lastly if we are a truly a nation, then we have to act like one and bring everyone into access to basic health care by all being willing to pay something for it. Individual rights dominate our political rhetoric. What we need to hear from the President is more about our duties and obligations as citizens to one another.
The Supreme Court has now deemed health reform legal. It is now up to the president to make sure that Americans buy into the argument that it is moral.
Related news:
Supreme Court upholds health care law
Thrilled and relieved, sick patients cheer ruling
President Obama tells the nation in a televised address that the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act "reaffirmed a fundamental principle" that "no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin."
Leave a Comment:
In purely operational terms, the American health care industry is already probably the most topsy-turvy out there. Imagine how it will be if thousands of formerly untreated sick people start coming through its doors!
I hope you intended to be ironic about the health care industry unable to treat sick people. Isn't that sorta like their job?
It would seem the answer to the moral question is obvious by simply stating the GOP alternative:
You poor - go die now!
Pretty obvious.
And, BTW, letting the poor go die meets the definition of MANSLAUGHTER. All those evil GOP people that fought against HILLARYCARE should be in PRISON for EVERYONE THAT DIED SINCE THEN DUE TO LACK OF INSURANCE.
Causing death through ACTION OR INACTION is the DEFINITION of MANSLAUGHTER, you GOP MURDERERS!
So. I assume the Catholic Church still makes MURDER a MORTAL SIN.
Guess where EVERYONE IN THE GOP IS GOING when they die!
Expecting Americans to accept a moral argument? To conservatives, morality means imposing religion and sexual restrictions on others...not promoting equality and fairness...
Welcome to Amerika! Land of the corporate free and the phony brave..
Why do you supporters think this will work? It is NOT working in the European countries. It is financially insolvent in France, a horror story in England, not a problem in Finland because no one there is low income or ill apparently, and anyone with money in Canada comes to the US for health care of anything more serious than a broken arm.
Don't Americans get it yet. You already pay for somebody else's reckless driving and accidents - in your auto insurance premiums, you already pay for somebody who chooses to build a home in a tornado prone or wildfire prone area - in your home insurance premiums, you already pay for those who do not take care of themselves and die young - in your life insurance premiums, you already pay for those who take a bank loan and do not pay it back - in your bank fees, low deposit rates, and high loan rates. Why should health insurance be any different than all the rest. By getting adequate health care at the early stages of a problem - the much more costly later stages can be avoided - hopefully saving money for everyone in the longer run. Your references to France and England are generalities and thus bear no credence. Yes people with money from Canada can come to the US and
get treated sooner - rather than waiting (if their problems are not serious) as they currently do in Canada.
As a parent of a child with chronic and on-going medical issues, I am grateful for the superb care that we get at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. I am beyond grateful for a medical system that will continue to treat my child. If we lived in the US, my child might not be alive as I could not afford the care and we are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Do we occasionally have to wait for treatments - heck yes... and every time we do, I know it is because there is is another child who is far sicker than mine and another family whose lives are shattered enough without adding the fear of medical bills to the equation.
I'm sorry but this law is unfair to the citizens, and i mean citizens! of the United States of America. I'm an ex U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman and have been in the medical field for over 30 years, so I can speak from experience. Why should I pay for the health care of people who abuse their health? I take care of myself, don't smoke, eat right, do what I can after injuries to stay in shape, but am I responsuble for individuals who smoke, eat fast food and lie on their couch watching TV all day. Hell the only time they go outside is to buy smoke, alcohol and crap with their welfare checks. If my insurance coverage or costs are affected by this law I will refuse to pay it and go to jail and let the honest taxpayers of this country pay for my care
Jay, you should know you (and I) are ALREADY paying for the uninsured. I wish you guys would try to understand the problems we already have and the costs we already pay. And to the person who went off on France's healthcare, that is NOT part of the problems they have, they pay far less than we do for superior care. All the care I got in Ireland and the UK was fabulous, and the reason so many people are bitching is because they can't see past their Obamahate. The ACA is far more of a republican reform and the mandate is totally a republican idea. We do need to tweak it, but republicans have nothing except get rid of it, nothing else. In the long run this is great for the country, but some people are slow to catch on.
Tens of thousands die prematurely every year here in US strictly because they have no health insurance. Yet we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year fighting wars overseas supposedly to protect Americans from terrorism. How moral is that?
so Jay, are you saying because you already have insurance, screw everyone else? And if you have government insurance, aren't my taxes contributing towards your benefits?
Assuming that forcing citizens to buy health insurance is moral (i'm on the fence on that one), what is certainly immoral is the fact that a family of 4 can spend, combined with their employer's contribution, upwards of 20k and still have ridiculously crappy coverage. No out of network docs, $2-5k deductible before anything but the most basic office visit is covered and then, after meeting the deductible, a 30% co-pay on most bills. I would have far less objections in being forced to buy insurance if my insurance actually covered the bills. My office mate has severe sinus problems and it has been recommended that she go for a cat scan but even with good insurance, she won't hit her deductible and can't afford the $1,500 cost. If the goal was to truly provide all Americans with coverage, then they should get full coverage. I'm waiting to see over the next 5 years how much less this insurance covers for greater premiums.
Jesus wants everyone to be take care of, especially the poor.
" Go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then come, follow me" Mark 10:21
Single payer would be better, cutting out the insurance company middle man.
We are inundated with whining people happy now that their medical costs will be covered by obamacare. What they refuse to acknowledge is that nothing is free and their coverage is going to be paid for by someone else.
This is the essence of obamacare which is to provide medical coverage to millions; they had to enact an onerous tax on everybody else. This will create a downward spiral increasing the cost of this obamacare abomination and degrading the quality of healthcare. No, this won't happen overnight, but it will happen, which is Obama's plan because he correctly assumes that if it happens gradually, none of the dregs will notice.
The larger question is do we want government exercising such all encompassing control over our lives? This, I believe, is Obama's ultimate goal.
This may end up not being a good thing for Obama. We will, however, need to wait until November to find out.
Yet in the arguments form the selfish few they forget the family who has health insurance, and have a newborn with a congenital heart defect that their insurance company refuses to cover.
You who are against this go to that family and tell them why they have to go bankrupt, not afford to eat all because their insurance company refuses to pay for a "pre-existing" condition. Come 2014 their child will be covered.
Celeyonn & Jay - Anyone, including YOU, can be severely injured at no fault of his/her own (e.g., a drunk driver hits you), and plenty of holier-than-thou types who don't smoke/drink/eat poorly etc. have no clue that NO ONE has a 100% guarantee that they will not contract a serious illness or never receive a life-threatening disease diagnosis. But I am glad to know that should either of you find yourself in these situations, we can just let you drop dead. (and I do not say this lightly, Jay - I respect the military - but I'll make a rare exception in your case.)
is it moral? what a ridiculous question. of course it's moral to now cover people who had preexisting conditions. of course it's moral for everyone to have an ability to receive medical treatment. was that ever really the question?
Not only is it moral, but according to the New Testament, it is the Christian thing to do. Don't believe me? Read the words of Jesus and His Profits especially Mark, Luke, and Matthew about the poor, and needy versus what they said about the Rich.
SC, I think you meant "Prophets." The usual term used is "disciples."
Is it moral, absolutely! If the insurance companies don't want to have morals, ethics, compassion and empathy then they need to get out of the health care business. That is what is required when treating people who are sick. Unfortunately CEO's and directors of health insurance companies think it is only about making money and putting it in their pockets. Do you think they don't sleep at night because they denied a little girl drugs needed to help beat cancer? Not on your life!!!!
Horse@!$%#!
Please move to Somalia.
I think even they have universal health care.
Since when, in the last 40 years, have morals had much to do with what goes on inside the beltway? Same with the private insurance companies. Maybe this will impose a little more morality in the Federal Healthcare System, but I will have to see it to believe it. What is immoral is waging war instead of providing for the well being of our on people.
We need health care, I am glad it went through, it saved the lives of many poverty stricken people. It's not a tax like how we are taxed on houses and cars. In Missouri, we pay state taxes so what is the difference? They don't want poor people to have access to healthcare because that mean more poor people won't die. I am a senior citizen and I have to pay $10 for cough medicine that is not covered by my health plan.
Thank You
-Senior 65 years old still paying taxes
kevo12, if you are still paying taxes after retirement, you are not poor. You can afford the over the counter cough medicine for $10.
But don't worry, the new tax code to pay for all this will solve that problem. You'll soon be poor.
What i do not get is what you people are not talking about, Page HR 3200 1001 1004 1006 HR 3590 & HR 4872 the mandatory RFID Chipping of All People In the U.S.A. Under your skin Chip like an animal. The very fact this Chips original Name is 666 and in the world of Biblical knowledge know this to be a warning that is over 2000 years old. We are TOLD NOT TO EXCEPT THE MARK OF THE BEAST yet they are doing this Mandatorely WORLD WIDE. A health Care that KILLS PEOPLE ? ( KISS my ass Congress. Supreme to NOTHING COURT & the POLICE WHO do not know what they are Protecting.) Civil War is what they want and a Civil war they will have in the Months ahead and A Revolution world wide. Though HAARP Is their weapon of Choice, think not this Fire in Colorado was set by your own GOVERNMENT, Or at the very lest they DID NOT PROTECT YOU AT ALL. When We Have all this Technology but still prefer to not use our HEADS or our military might? All the planes they have for this, Cost is their argument and how many billions do you spend squashing peoples TENTS in foreign Countries but will not help SAVE Peoples HOMES HERE? And you people will vote this Traitor in for another 4 years for more of this? You really must be brain dead or like the taste of death in the morning as your Chem-Trails will Continue to Kill you all so slowly you wont even know you are dropping like fly s sprayed with RAID. Check out the body count in New Orleans they claim is do to CHEM TRAILS. Obamas Health care is an ATROCITY of Biblical Proportions. And if you do not learn it now it will be to late and you will be interned into an FEMA concentration camp before 2015 and that People is a spit in the wind of time. To all you who think a Gun is going to save you truly do not watch the news of the WARS going on. Your wall-mart perches gave the government your address your ammo perches did the same thing your Permit to carry gave them your address as well. They know who you are with the Guns and you will be the ones whose homes will be bombed first by a Drone. after they have watched you for all this time you are on that Black list of obamas already with your purchase, This war will only be won (BY YOUR EDUCATING OTHERS OF WHAT IS TO COME & CHANGE THE MINDS OF POLICE, MILITARY and you Moms who say No to your Children s will to JOIN THEM! EDUCATION IS OUR ONLY STRENGTH, and our ability for Cyber attacks on their weapon systems. Good Going Kids in College it is up to your Brain power to Win this for the WORLD. Shut down the RFID chipping and we have a Chance. You already have your hand on a drone Keep up the GOOD WORK.
CHAPLAIN, You make me wonder if mental health is covered by the new healthcare laws.
PLEASE Chaplain, RUN don't walk to your med table and take your next dose!!
Whether or not the Health Care Act is a good economic policy has yet to be determined. As far as morality is concerned it's a win for humanity. But...the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I really wish this author would learn that there's a difference between Insure (to financially underwrite with insurance) and Ensure (to act so as to certain something occurs). "The only way to insure that is to insure access to basic health care" should surely be "ensure" in both cases.
Grammar Nazi! Who cares about how you know the difference between homonyms? Want a pat on the back? How "bout" we talk about the issue at hand?
Great article, by the way. Morality and the state were never meant to be separated. Just religion.
I agree. A "medical ethicist" has less excuse than anyone for not knowing that. Then again, Caplan consistently talks out his ass, so I'm not really surprised.
Morality is not an issue. The issue is one of cost and spending priorities. If Americans are willing to pay, they can get a health system that provides the luxury of relatively unrestricted healthcare choices for more people. If they don't want to pay more, then more people may get health coverage but coverage will be more restricted in some way. Alternatively, some other spending priority will have to suffer- e.g. education, military, transportation infrastructure, etc. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps the healthcare debate can now focus on what is really the issue: As a society, how do we want to prioritize the spending of limited tax dollars on numerous competing public goods.
Pretty sure I can't think of any higher priority that health care for each and every person. That seems like a pretty basic priority to me. I am willing to pay. You should be, too. Or do you want little kids to die in favor of new freeways?
@Tara - Making me pay for your needs is legislating charity, which is not moral.
No. What we need to concentrate on now is QUALITY and COST.
First: Get the INSURANCE COMPANIES out of the market. That saves AT LEAST 20% of every dollar. SAY IT WITH ME: SINGLE PAYER, SINGLE PAYER
Second: Pay the PRIVATE PROVIDERS for outcomes (just like you want for TEACHERS), not fee for service. Let the market decide.
Note that SINGLE PAYER is MORE free market than the current INSURANCE SCAM METHOD! Insurance companies have a FIXED GROUP of providers that DO NOT COMPETE. In a SINGLE PAYER system with fee for performance EVERY PROVIDER COMPETES FOR EVERY SERVICE!
No. What we need to concentrate on now is QUALITY and COST.
First: Get the INSURANCE COMPANIES out of the market. That saves AT LEAST 20% of every dollar. SAY IT WITH ME: SINGLE PAYER, SINGLE PAYER
Second: Pay the PRIVATE PROVIDERS for outcomes (just like you want for TEACHERS), not fee for service. Let the market decide.
Note that SINGLE PAYER is MORE free market than the current INSURANCE SCAM METHOD! Insurance companies have a FIXED GROUP of providers that DO NOT COMPETE. In a SINGLE PAYER system with fee for performance EVERY PROVIDER COMPETES FOR EVERY SERVICE!
Darthdon:
Legislating charity? That is a strange perspective. Health care infrastructure benefits all - like roads. So everyone chipping in and building a road is CHARITY?
It is ONLY CHARITY if YOU NEVER NEED IT.
Don't fret. Republican control of the White House, the Senate, and the House will ensure that Government is dismantled and re-assembled as Corporate Entities. In the same vein, they will ensure that your Freedoms, Liberties, and Rights are adjusted to meet those of the ruling Corporations. If you are between the ages of 14 to 65, you have been conscripted to serve in the Corporate Military or face Corporate Justice. Hear ye! Hear ye! It is further decreed that the sickly, the needy, the poor, and the elderly be confined until death in one of our Concentration Camps.....
I really don't think changing the payer will have a significant effect on the costs of care. In fact, the above is in direct conflict with another of your statements....
So competition increases of decreases prices? It seems like you are saying both...
@Tera-10254: You are a troll. You don't want to have any part of helping others in their time of need, yet you would have no problem with your insurance paying $1 million if you were in a serious accident or needed an organ transplant. You don't hope that you get into an accident just because you have auto insurance, do you?
SRS - here's my problem with single payer. Several problems actually. Name one other federal entitlement program where the recepients get service as good as people that pay for it themselves? Here are a few I can think of - government housing: full of crime, drugs, and they're falling apart. People that rely on Social Security as only source of income are in dire straights. People on medicare/medicaid would trade it for a private policy in a heartbeat. So I fully expect that the incompetence, waste, and corruption that runs rampant in government in general will be present in any single payer plan as well. I have no expectation that a government run health plan will end up any better than any other government run plan.
The other big issue is that with private insurance, if they screw you over, at least you can sue them. Good luck suing anyone when it's the government that's doing it.
You should probably Ensure your writer / editor knows the proper definition and usage between Ensure and Insure.
That is all :P
1619317 is correct, this article is Horse $%$#%$. The author is trying to justify the law on moral grounds - what a crock. Life is not fair and not all will be treated equally during their lifetimes. Been that way from the beginning. Access to health care does not a moral issue; it's an economic issue. Who's going to pay for that equal access? Pre-existing conditions is an economic, not a moral issue. The cost for health care for those with pre-existing conditions is far greater than, and require greater premium, than for those who do not have pre-existing conditions. And, we all pay "something" for it is just another "transfer wealth (tax the rich and give to the poor - Robin Hood) blather. When those who are taxed have no incentive to produce wealth that is redistributed to those who won't, it will be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs. Good while it lasts, but when the goose is dead, then what? This country was not created on socialism and should not turn to socialism with regard to health care or any other issue.
I always love seeing this talking point.
It lets me know which retards to ignore. Have a good day sir, I hope those crazy commies don't take you away in your sleep to brainwash you into loving socialism.
So by your way of thinking because I don't have children I should not have to pay for education, I don't burn down my house why pay for fire protection? I have my own gun so why pay for police? I don't drive much why pay for roads? I have a Kindle, why pay for libraries?
As a nation that likes to posit itself as "under God" and "In God we trust" we are not too good at the "Whatever you do to the least of your brothers, that you do unto me" part.
So... only the rich should live? Are you sure?? That's terrible :(
@sambrowno - Roads are paid for by gas taxes. If you don't use gas or diesel, you don't pay for the roads. So, yes, if you don't drive much, you don't pay for the roads. (Except for the fuel tax part of the cost of transporting food, etc. to whatever store you shop at.)
John, you do have one point "life is not fair". Some people are beautiful, some are smart, some are athletic, some have amazing dexterity, some are talented. And some are born just plain greedy.
I'm not too worried that somebody who makes money will "lose his incentive" as long as what he does gets him more money then the next person. That's the way greedy people are. You see, you can sell you soul for money, but no amount of money can buy you one.
If you have no soul, you don't worry about morality, because you don't have any morals.
I am glad that Obamacare passed! It is moral to be able to go to the hospital and get treated. I am 65 years old an I have Medicaid and Wellcare but neither covers a $10 bottle of cough medicine. We already know nothing in America is free, when you buy a house in Missouri when you pay for it, you still have to pay taxes. In other words, you do not own anything every year. I rather pay taxes on my health instead of a car that might get taken away if you don't pay your taxes. I don't believe that poor people do not want to pay for healthcare but these rich people who don't want to pay their fair share.
-Concerned Senior Citizen
@ kevo - It still won't pay for that bottle of cough medicine. And since when is anything fair about having me pay for your needs, (and bad life-style choices)?
DarthDon..maybe you should change your name to DickheadDon...just saying....
I wonder if darth has health care. If not, I am paying for his needs, which is something to regret. If so, he is already paying for other people's needs, but is apparently too ignorant to know that.
But when you get down to it, since there are 20-40,000 people (depending on the study) dying every year because they do not have access to health care, and since darth supports this and votes for the politicians who support it, he indirectly participates in mass murder. darth has picked the right nickname.
Darth, this bill is trying to stop us having to pay for the free loaders that do not have insurance. They use the ER and do not pay! My husband is an ER doctor and 20% of our patients pay nothing. The hospital does not pay us for treating those patients either. It is mandated free care. These people cost the system millions and I am tired of footing the bill for them. Let them buy insurance and participate in the system like the rest of us.
Provisions are made for cost assistance. You cannot make the argument that you do not use health care because all of us will. Ou could be hit by a bus on any given day, and probably no fault of your own, but some one will pay. Right now that is all of us by higher prices and higher premiums.
Angie...and then you charge those who can pay more than the service and related supplies are worth to make up for it...so you don't lose out...so why are you complaining?
This has dookie to do with notions of morality and fair play.
It boils down to a simple equation. Buy health insurance, or pay a tax to the government. You have no other choice.
As far as helping the downtrodden is concerned, we've had Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the indigent, and countless voluntary and charitable groups providing care to the disadvantaged for decades, if not longer. And costs have continued to soar.
All the SC did today was affirm that Congress can create cartels for the health insurance industry. Buy the insurance or pay the tax. That's no choice at all. And it has nothing to do with morality or ethics. It has do with power. Power of the government over its citizens. It is supposed to be the other way around.
This wasn't health reform; this was insurance reform. (Unconstitutional reform under the commerce clause, unless you think anything and everything the government does is commerce and the fact the tax bill orginated in the senate which is unconstituational Apparently, that is the case. Roberts being the idiot that cant seem to grasp his own folly) As far as health reform; that won't happen until we have 25% unemployment because employers start dumping folks into the system for these exchanges and people pay the penalty - its cheaper --- because there is nothing available even with Guaranteed issue at the exchange level. At that point, there will be a lot of buzz words but untilization of the uninsured, now with a card to get freebies for any and all services ...Hey, I would like a back massage by some young gal for my aching feet while I drink pino - colada at club med for my headache. Brought to you by the newly engaged disenfranchised freebie lover.
I think the exchanges might work better, actually. We'll see.
Medicare for All (House Res. 676)- no private insurance companies taking 40% of all premiums for themselves, no for-profit medicine charging whatever the care and cost-shifting, no Pharma extortion requiring us to pay multiples for the same drug as Canadians and Mexicans. Seniors pay $400/ month ($95 to Medicare and $200 to MediGap) to have 100% of their costs for everything covereed everywhere all the time.
Can you do that?
Private insurance takes 25% and will continue to do so under obama care. Again this was insurance reform not health reform. BIG difference. Actually, you pay even higher cost for drugs under obama care. The 340b plans were in exchange for denying importing of drugs. Now, that is going to grow very large at your expense. No free lunch. Lots of folks getting dumped in the exchanges but prices to high so they pay the penalty. Its going to explode the deficit and will lead to rationing or the system breakdown. That's the end result craig. Get used to it. The only way is printing more money or bankruptcy. You can't put 40 million high utilizers into the system --ie with a card for freebies --- and not end up with rationing and death panels. That's the end game.
Craig. What do you do for a living? Wouldn't we all be better off if the government took over your business and gave us its products and/or services? That way we wouldn't have to pay you and we could thank Uncle Obama for the savings......
Oh and why is it ethical that I have to buy my own food, clothing and shelter? These are just as necessary as healthcare (and more necessary than contraceptives)!. How unethical of the author to not advocate that the government fine me for not adequately insuring these necessities.
exactly, Obamacare is NOT healthcare reform, but health insurance reform, which ends with private insurance companies, pharm companies and hospitals benefiting more than regular people. it does nothing to control medical cost except forcing more people into paying insurance to private insurance companies. so, be prepared to pay more on premium plus healthcare tax on everything else.
if you think that's a good healthcare law, just wait till you experience it yourself in next few years.
we need real healthcare (not insurance) reform, but Obamacare is just not that!
Agree that this is insurance reform and not health reform. Health reform would have looked at this quagmire from all angles...address tort reform, reimbursements to physicians, end of life care, costs of increasing premiums while providing less coverage, denial of payment of procedures notwithstaning that they are "covered", big pharma control, shortage of medical personnel, etc. If you look at the whole pic and address most if not all of these issues, then you have true health care reform. All this insurance reform will do is increase costs, overcrowd the already overcrowded doctors, reduce reimbursements for our professionals (the one group in my opinion who continually gets the short end of the stick), reduce coverage and won't address the fact that millions of illegals will still drain from the system without insurance.
Here's a thought: with hospitals having to write off the expense of treating people without insurance or property to place a lien against, would the price of hospitalization go up or down if these same people now have health insurance?
Another thought: with 70% of bankruptcies involving bills for treatment/hospitalization (this was proved by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, with the Republicans fighting it all the way), would the percentage of bankruptcies go up or down if these same people now have health insurance?
Forget the morality! Follow the MONEY!!! One way or another, if there is no resolution, we all pay regardless.
Does anyone remember when HMO legislation was signed for by Richard M Nixon? It was supposed to make savings for the insurance companies, which of course weren't passed along to the rest of us. Talk about death panels-the HMO's hired doctors that were given financial incentives to turn people down for treatment. Saved a ton of money for the insurance companies. Underwriters could cancel a policy if a person's doctor didn't fill out a form correctly (and that is still going on).
And I agree with Sambrowno regarding all of us sharing in the cost of education, fire and police departments, sanitation departments, etc. In the old days, only the wealthy had these things that they paid for through subscriptions. Other people (the pre-middle class) would pool their funds to bring a teacher to their community to teach all grades in a one-room schoolhouse. Some doctors used to consider their job a calling and treat people who didn't have money, while other doctors would only treat the well-to-do.
It is very, very scary that the Federal Government is involved to the degree they are. It is very scary that they needed 2500+ pages of legislation to fix it. Why not a few hundred pages at best and let the states follow the guidelines for implementation?
The government has botched Social Security and Medicare and now they have another one to mismanage.
Boo!
Speaking of moral values, didn't the republicans oppose "HillaryCare" with the argument that an individual mandate was a better option because it relies on individual responsibility? Didn't then Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney implement the individual mandate in his state using the same reasoning? The very same people (Gingrinch, Romney, ...) that used to argue in favor of an individual mandate are now telling us that it is wrong and unamerican.
Did I miss an episode?
While I think this is indeed a moral issue, I'm not so naive to believe for a second that this wasn't mostly an economic one. But I think morality did play at least a moderate role in this and for this I thank Obama. While some peole with rigid religious beliefs may not see him as moral (break only one of my "laws" and to Hell with you they scream...but believing all the time they are forgiven), from my perspective, he is much more moral than than Republican alternatives.
If Christ had arrived and was the President, most of the so-called Christians would still be against the Health Care legislation. Not only it is moral, but is the Christian thing to do.
The health care industry itself is immoral. They have no incentive to pay out and every incentive to deny claims. The result is a for-profit system that enriches itself from illness. We need to make sure health insurance companies do what they are obligated to do and remove the inherant conflict of interest they have and since private enterprise won't do it, it's up to the federal government.
The article was pretty weak, the question of Morality is totally bogus.
Guess the author missed the "GREED is GOOD" '80's and the "Show me the MONEY" '90's.
How ridiculous. Is it moral? Of course it is. It is immoral to deny care to people and make them suffer because they cannot afford the wildly exorbitant costs of a healthcare system out of control. As a business owner and as a consumer, my healthcare rates have gone up 15%-22% each year for the last 12 years. And coverage has decreased.
The fact that the US doesn't have universal healthcare and the rest of the G20 do is repulsive. We don't seem to care about anyone but our selves in this country. What a shame.
Is the ACA moral, hell yes!
Hopefully you're used to increasing premiums by now, because they're definitely going to increase. When people don't pay for something, they use more of it. So all the people that weren't paying for insurance that now get it for "free" meaning we all pay for it, they're going to start using it a lot more.
You have the right to provide for yourself, you don't (or at least didn't until 1915) have the right to take what I earn to do it. That is theft.
First and foremost, the Republican agenda is to oppose Obama with gusto.
The mandate came about 25 years ago out of a right-wing Think Tank. Now, how the heck all of the Constitutional Purist did not know this for 25 years, beats me. So, the question is; what else is the Heritage Foundation and ALEC etc. are proposing which can be wrong?
What is wrong is telling Americans if you work for a big company or a big arm of the government you can have great health care. Better yet if you are substantially wealthy. Otherwise head over to the ER of your local Hospital and; GOOD LUCK!?
Why does everyone talk about the poor so much in this? It's not just the poor! I have health insurance, a middle income job and everything, and I have had to forgo medical care because of my 2000 dollar deductible. This isn't about taking care of our poor and elderly, although that is a happy bi product of this. It is also about taking care of ourselves, and that is always a "moral" thing to do.
Nice job of using heavy smoke (morality) to draw attention away from the real issue (constitutionality). The real question is whether the governmet can force an American citizen to either purchase a product or service voluntarily, or pay a mandatory fee to the government for this product (penalty). Apparently they can if they change the definition of the word fee to mean tax. Oh SCOTUS (Magoo) you've done it again.
Talk about 'heavy smoke,' [insert backward 'dragonfart' here], you apparently believe the Constitution is devoid of moral components.
You also managed to miss the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled the ACA constitutional. (So you've got that backwards, too.)
Do you drive a car? If so, you're required to have insurance. If you don't, you can have your car impounded. If you hurt someone else with your car, you can lose everything.
Just because the SCOTUS ruled it is Legal does not make it right. The Congress can still repeal the ACA if they wish to do so that is the beauty or horror of the American system of government depending on your stance on a issue.
The car insurance argument is weak IMO driving is a priviledge that can be revoked by the state plus there are options to driving like walking,biking, or Public Transportation not everyone in America owns a car. With the ACA no choice is given so in essence it is a Tax and that is what Justice Roberts called it in his ruling.
The ACA is a massive Tax increase not healthcare reform.