Modern Healthcare - - OPINIONS | EDITORIALS -

“Tues­day’s two hours of Supreme Court oral ar­gu­ments on Oba­macare’s in­di­vid­ual man­date were rough-go­ing for the gov­ern­ment and its as­ser­tions of un­lim­ited fed­eral power. Sev­eral jus­tices are clearly tak­ing se­ri­ously the Con­sti­tu­tion’s struc­tural checks and bal­ances that are in­tended to pro­tect in­di­vid­ual lib­erty. … The court has al­ways bal­anced fed­eral and state power by dis­tin­guish­ing be­tween pres­sure and co­er­cion. Oba­macare crosses that line. The con­di­tions of new Med­i­caid con­script the states into in­vol­un­tary servi­tude to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment’s pol­icy goals, in this case na­tional health­care.”

—Wall Street Jour­nal

“A fam­ily med­i­cal pol­icy costs an es­ti­mated $1,000 more a year be­cause of the price of treat­ing the unin­sured.”

“Supreme Court ar­gu­ments over the ‘in­di­vid­ual man­date’ con­tained in the 2010 health­care law came down to one core ques­tion. If the gov­ern­ment can re­quire you to buy med­i­cal in­sur­ance, what else could it make you buy? Skep­tics of the (in­di­vid­ual) man­date sug­gested a range of pos­si­bil­i­ties. Cars? (Jus­tice An­tonin Scalia) Cell­phones to dial 911? (Chief Jus­tice John Roberts) Burial in­sur­ance? (Jus­tice Sa­muel Al­ito) Broc­coli? (Roberts and Scalia) ...., It fell to Jus­tice Ruth Bader Gins­burg to point out the ra­tio­nale be­hind the in­di­vid­ual man­date: ‘The peo­ple who don’t par­tic­i­pate in (the health in­sur­ance) mar­ket are mak­ing it much more ex­pen­sive for the peo­ple who do,’ she ob­served. … It’s hard to make that case about con­sumers, and non­con­sumers, of any other prod­uct. A fam­ily med­i­cal pol­icy costs an es­ti­mated $1,000 more a year be­cause of the price of treat­ing the unin­sured. So it makes sense— as a mat­ter of per­sonal re­spon­si­bil­ity and so­cial eq­uity—to re­quire most peo­ple to have cov­er­age.”

—USA To­day “If the Supreme Court strikes down the in­di­vid­ual man­date in the new health law, pri­vate in­sur­ers will swarm Capi­tol Hill de­mand­ing that the law be amended to re­move the re­quire­ment that they cover peo­ple with pre­ex­ist­ing con­di­tions. When this hap­pens, Mr. Obama and the Democrats should say they’re will­ing to re­move that re­quire­ment—but only if Medi­care is avail­able to all, fi­nanced by pay­roll taxes. Do this and the public will be be­hind them, as will the Supreme Court.” —For­mer La­bor Sec­re­tary Robert Re­ich in the

Bal­ti­more Sun

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.