« Articles We Never Finished Reading: Here, There... Somewhere | Main | Island Time »

March 29, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

random thoughts on

3) Buying a passport is a choice, and I am not penalized financially for not having one (which I don't, sadly)

2) wrong wrong wrong...health care does not equal health insurance...rinse lather repeat...they are different nouns; and the latter only exists because the government refuses to do what every other civilized western nation does: treat health care as a right...only here would health care not be a right but health insurance be a must...that's what's called Bizarro World

4) yes those numbers have shifted with much fewer employers covering their employees, and further your argument fails to take into consideration those affected who put off leaving a job, otherwise not suited to them, for fear of "the fee." Hardly a "dead issue" when one is considering a career switch until the government decides to guarantee the wage to pay for it.

and on Finally), though I think you are right that the Supremes will uphold ACA, I do find your argument about punting until the "tax is collected" interesting in that calling the penalty a "tax" seemed to be in question.

It's a bit laughable to me that you would find a ruling striking down ACA "political" but one upholding it..."not?"

You really do seem to be conflating health insurance with health care...one is necessary, the other an unnecessary evil.

3) You're penalized by not being allowed to travel freely between countries, except by paying for a passport. And a photo.

Beyond that, your "random" thoughts do strike me as, yes, random... and thus more nitpicking than coherent (the "call it a penalty or a tax" debate is especially ludicrous; call it your Aunt Sally, you still have the basics of health insurance or pay a fee). I'm not trying to conflate health care and health insurance, only to point out, however the conservative justices and the conservative lawyers try to separate the two, you can't, really, when talking about our current systems and how health care is paid for (or not paid for), in most cases. The point of the ACA is to try and "work around" the question of health care access by making more, cheaper, health insurance available so more people can get access to care. I don't think it's the greatest idea, or the most workable... but I think if the Supreme Court thinks that bad, wait until they see Single Payer proposals. I think any decision from this Court will be "political", but I think upholding it would actually take some of the "politics" out of the debate, since we then, at least, have some solid ground from where to begin a fresh debate. Eliminating all of the ACA (which I still think is unlikely) returns us to a place that's far less clearly defined, and back at square one, or worse, in terms of evaluating what health care problems we have and how to address them. The debate we had over ACA does not improve by having it again.

I can't leave aside, either, your disputing my point about who has insurance. Yes, higher unemployment has surely affected how many people have insurance, and people who are under employed and part time employed are affected as well. Smaller employers may not be providing insurance (though many try). Even with all that, you ignore my main point: all of that factored in, the vast majority of Americans have some sort of health insurance. And that, still, is why this anger over a penalty/fee/tax is for most people - you included - misplaced, when you won't even have to pay it. Until the fee/penalty/tax goes into effect, we won't really know how this plays out, and, as I said, if a substantial number of people can't get insurance - because the exchanges aren't up and running, or because Medicaid can't be fully expanded - there will be enormous pressure to put off collecting the fee, or to restructure it somehow. In other words, the penalty/fee/tax itself is a mechanism that will continue to put pressure on Congress to do better on health care. None of that makes me a fan or defender of the ACA... but I think we're kind of stuck with letting the ACA take effect and seeing where we are then, rather than hoping that the Supreme Court puts us back beyond Square One, having to start over again from scratch. Single Payer will not be the next result if that's what happens.

They were random only in the order in which they appeared LOL, but nice try at distraction with that nitpick.

What "fresh debate" are we going to have if the Supreme Court upholds ACA? From all accounts I've heard this was the "last chance at reforming health care for a generation."

The rest of your response lacks sufficient substance for reply.

Except that if you think the passport situation is analogous, you really are missing the point. I can choose NOT to travel between countries.

ACA mandates my purchase of a product for merely existing in America. What other industry enjoys that kind of favored status?

I'll save you some more bad guesses (along with passport): Driver's License (don't have to drive), Shelter (desirable but not mandated)

On the other hand, we all eventually die and there are costs related that continue to rise...where's the mandate to buy funeral insurance?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

google list

Bookmark and Share