VideoNEW
Podcasts
BlogsAbout this Blog
More Blogs
New York-based writer Matthew Hall has chased fugitives across Texas, been shot in outback Australia and has lunched with Liza Minnelli.
Radio News Bulletin
- Latest Bulletin
Fri 24th May 2013 2:39PM - Featured Stories
Wed 30th Nov -0001 12:00AM - National strategy to cut Indigenous suicide
Fri 24th May 2013 12:00AM - New ASIO assessments review needed
Fri 24th May 2013 12:00AM - How does betting affect kids' view of sport?
Fri 24th May 2013 12:00AM
Blogs
More Blogs-
-
Hate Crime Murder on a busy New York Street.
22 May 2013, 11:14 AM
-
-
End of parity: Experts say A$ heading south
17 May 2013, 18:13 PM
-
-
15 May 2013, 14:36 PM
-
-
The winning costs of Eurovision 2013
14 May 2013, 17:40 PM
180 degrees
Matthew Hall presents a first-hand look at world events from a different angle. Follow @Matthew_HallIs compulsory health insurance unconstitutional?
27 March 2012, 8:07 AM | Source: Matthew Hall, SBS
Is compulsory health insurance unconstitutional?
Instead, the President’s reform of healthcare is before the Supreme Court.
Twenty-six states (and a lobby group representing small businesses) have challenged the federal law – signed in 2010 – that planned to revolutionise healthcare in the United States. Reform remains divisive and most of it is along political lines.
Obama’s plan includes a requirement that people obtain compulsory health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. Important point: healthcare in the United States is not, for most of the population, supported by the government in the way it is in Australia.
Mostly, people take out private insurance that is costly and complex, inefficiently managed, exclusive (insurance providers can deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition) but also extremely profitable and lucrative for the insurance companies.
Some, including the President, believe the system is broken and want to fix it. Others, mainly Republicans, want no change.
A key component of Obama’s plan, already signed into law, is that health insurance is compulsory. Currently, many people do not take out insurance because they can’t afford it or see no need. Then they get sick. They then use healthcare that a hospital, by law, must provide and which costs are passed on to those who do pay insurance.
The compulsory insurance factor is a key trigger in forcing insurance companies to take on customers who have pre-conditions. But opponents claim – and are arguing in front of the Supreme Court – that the requirement is unconstitutional based, they say, on the idea that the government should not be able to “regulate commerce”, or force people to buy something they don’t want.
Americans are big on individual rights. Political arguments will often swerve toward that argument and it will trump any concern for social contracts assisting those well off. Hard up? Can’t break out of poverty? It will be argued that you should work harder – get two or three or four jobs. Be responsible for yourself. A society’s helping hand is often confused with “Socialism”.
The courts ruling on this issue is due in June. It should provide an election year boost for Obama – or a massive blow in his campaign. The court, that swings marginally Republican, has a few options.
It could uphold the law, agreeing the government has the right to demand Americans buy health insurance.
It could throw out the entire Affordable Care Act, dropping a bomb on Obama.
Or, it could screw reform and make it unmanageable by ruling compulsory insurance is unconstitutional but not the entire Affordable Care Act and send Obama back to the drawing board. This, as well, would be an Obama slapdown.
Here’s a link to some views on how the legal argument may play out. Read the comments, too.
The case has prompted over six hours of oral arguments to be scheduled for the issue. This is the biggest allocation of time for a case in over 40 years, demonstrating either the passion for the debate, complexity of the issues, the amount of hot air we’re likely to feel blow our way, or the size of the lawyer’s fees.
One argument, however, maybe breaks this down in a way many Americans can relate. The government makes you pay insurance for your car, right? And everyone agrees to do that. What’s the big difference with health insurance?
A lot and not much, apparently. If you don’t want to take out car insurance, don’t drive a car. If you don’t want health insurance, drop dead. Of course, nothing in America is ever that simple.
Join the Discussion
Your Comments
The debate involves the fundamental nature of the American political system
The court, that swings marginally Republican, has a few options. You have reduced an important Constitutional debate to nothing more than a partisan squabble. The disagreement is between those, mostly, but not exclusively, Democrats, who dislike the constraints that the US Constitution places on FedGov powers and those who wish to maintain limits on governmental power. Those favoring the validation of Obamacare are essentially arguing for a de facto scrapping of the US Constitution.
an ordinary American
Some ... believe the system is broken and want to fix it. Others, mainly Republicans, want no change. False. There is near unanimity of opinion that reform is necessary because government healthcare charity is breaking State budgets. The disagreement is over the form that reform should take. Most Americans, citizens and pols alike, recognize that interjecting government bureaucrats into every aspect of the healthcare industry will not increase efficiency and so they reject Obamacare.
The Answer
There is no dispute that the US health system is a mess, but Obama's solution will just exacerbate and entrench the existing problems. The real solution is to address the litigious nature of US culture, which results in ridiculous legal payouts, which in turn results in higher professional indemnity insurance costs, over-servicing resulting from second and third opinions to share any blame. It could be fixed by awarding the punitive damages component of any payout to the state in any lawsuit.
Healthcare is never free
Healthcare in the United States is not, for most of the population, supported by the government in the way it is in Australia. Healthcare is not supported by the government in Australia or anywhere else. It usually gets supported by forcibly extorting money from productive people, known as taxpayers. Obamacare will ensure that the 50% of Americans that pay income tax, will pay even more to support those who don't pay any. This is known as "social justice"
an ordinary American
If you don’t want health insurance, drop dead. Before Obamacare, 85% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance. Not many people lacked health insurance because they couldn't afford it. They then use healthcare that a hospital, by law, must provide and which costs are passed on to those who do pay insurance. Or their costs are covered by private or government charity. People don't just "drop dead" in America because they lack access to health care.
an ordinary American
A society’s helping hand is often confused with “Socialism”. There is no confusion. Civil society provides a helping hand through private charities - which are more robust in the US than in probably any other country. "Socialism", on-the-other-hand, is the confiscation of private wealth by a centralized authority which then uses that wealth for whatever those who control the authority wish. You are equating "society's helping hand" solely with government action - not how we see it.
It is pretty simple
If you don’t want health insurance, Drop Dead. ( or more correctly, can't afford it ) Americans are so unselfish, so humanitarian. One wonders why one billion hits of crystal meth are consumed in the USA in any given year, let's not talk about the hundreds of tons of cocaine, all just to live in that society? Now that's a health problem!
7
Comments | Add yours