Health Care Reform Supreme Court Case

EdsonNascimento

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Alright, getting into this late. What is the consensus? From reading (and I have been very sick for most of the week so it hasn't been enough), we came into the thing assuming it would be easily upheld but things have gone downhill. I don't really take the tough questioning as a negative, that's their job to get to the bottom of it and figure out how and if it is acceptable. Plus, how much do the oral arguments really matter? It's not as much the argument as it is the actual law, sure a great performance could help but what it comes down to is the bill itself.

So I think may agree that if the mandate fails a lot of the rest will fail. It will cripple insurance companies too much.

That said, is there any chance that if this does fail, single payer is back on the table at somepoint since the Republicans have brought absolutely ZERO alternatives to the table? Especially if Obama gets a second term. We can't go on with 50 million uninsured Americans.

I also read a commentary that the timing of this is perfect for Obama, there will be 5 to 6 months of the election cycle left when the decision comes down which is an eternity and Romney can't debate him on healthcare as it is so it isn't a huge deal for is reelection as it may seem.

My gut tells me they're being tough but it gets through.

The whole thing is off the table if this falls. Nobody's touching this in an election year, and the next Administration will be uniterested. Obama b/c he'd have a divided Congress, and been there, done that. The Republican b/c whoever is going to basically run on the failure of this (and not the issue itself - just the failure).

There may be some small pieces that find their way back through (coverage for children to age 26, etc). But the issue of single payer, etc. will be 2 administrations away.

Johnny Abruzzo

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Well, if you break a leg in a car accident, the health insurer shouldn't pay anyway. That's a property/casualty coverage called...auto insurance.

Yeah we covered that.

I forgot what we're debating. I guess we'll adjourn in June when the decision (hammer?) comes down.

EdsonNascimento

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Well, if you break a leg in a car accident, the health insurer shouldn't pay anyway. That's a property/casualty coverage called...auto insurance.

Yeah we covered that.

I forgot what we're debating. I guess we'll adjourn in June when the decision (hammer?) comes down.

Yeah, responded before I read the other. I'm 2nd, so I lose.

Cliffy6745

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Alright, getting into this late. What is the consensus? From reading (and I have been very sick for most of the week so it hasn't been enough), we came into the thing assuming it would be easily upheld but things have gone downhill. I don't really take the tough questioning as a negative, that's their job to get to the bottom of it and figure out how and if it is acceptable. Plus, how much do the oral arguments really matter? It's not as much the argument as it is the actual law, sure a great performance could help but what it comes down to is the bill itself.

So I think may agree that if the mandate fails a lot of the rest will fail. It will cripple insurance companies too much.

That said, is there any chance that if this does fail, single payer is back on the table at somepoint since the Republicans have brought absolutely ZERO alternatives to the table? Especially if Obama gets a second term. We can't go on with 50 million uninsured Americans.

I also read a commentary that the timing of this is perfect for Obama, there will be 5 to 6 months of the election cycle left when the decision comes down which is an eternity and Romney can't debate him on healthcare as it is so it isn't a huge deal for is reelection as it may seem.

My gut tells me they're being tough but it gets through.

I think there may be a media overreaction to what looked like a couple bad days for PPACA. I like your optimism about bringing back single payer if it's overturned. I just don't see it happening. I think we'd go on like we were for another 30-40 years before somebody else tried to tackle it. Republican obstruction on this issue has been going on for almost a century (if you count Social Security).

When it's off the table everybody loves single payer, but then when somebody tries to actually pass it all of a sudden it's the end of the fucking world.

Yeah, I hear you. I just feel like there is so much momentum that if Obama gets reelected that it would have to be a big initiative for him. He doesn't have to play political games anymore after he gets reelected and he will have his base fighting for him. I don't know. Probably way too optimistic on that.

Agreed.

Johnny Abruzzo

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Yeah, I hear you. I just feel like there is so much momentum that if Obama gets reelected that it would have to be a big initiative for him. He doesn't have to play political games anymore after he gets reelected and he will have his base fighting for him. I don't know. Probably way too optimistic on that.

Agreed.

They would need to take the House back. Not sure if that's gonna happen. Looks like some loser is running for Dem in my House district (PA-7). :roll:

Here's something depressing. Since I'm an actuary I can figure these things out. There's a 66% chance all 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices survive to 2017.

mikepegg44

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

well actually if you get diagnosed in your car I think you will be covered
sorry, don't know why I did that, I understood your point, I hate when people do that...


I have never fully understood catastrophic or major medical and what they cover...I would think that would be catastrophic but I think like a normal person...not an insurance company...I had major medical for a time but thankfully never had to use it
I am very disappointed that the members of congress didn't take the time to figure out that by creating this mandate it may be unconstitutinal, they were putting in jeopardy all of the parts of the legislation that are good and that people already depend on. Selfish, butt covering pricks

Well, let's be fair - nobody gave them time to read it before passing it. So, there's only a handful you can say that about. The rest that voted Aye! without reading you can just call incompetent.

you are right with your last sentiment...but to be fair the people that either didn't read it, or when writing deliberately avoided the tax discussion because they were pussies are not just incompetent, they were thinking of career first, country second; which is exactly what you want out of elected leaders ...how anyone supports fools like that in general elections is beyond me...the two major parties have coerced their constituencies to vote against the other guy. This is what happens when your entire strategy to get elected is based on making the other guy look like a worse option. Incompetent party liners on both sides are ruining this proud republic.

Anyone find it odd that with so many lawyers in congress and such a gigantically important bill, they didn't even stop to find out if how it was written could pass constitutional review? They had the majority in the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate and yet they didn't have the stones to call it a tax. Instead they had gotten so used to abusing the commerce clause they thought..."heck, we can do this...just say commerce clause...that seems to work with everything"...
This bill, and the entire process from start to finish, just illustrates exactly why people have zero confidence in our leadership in Washington. We have lawmakers who didn't read the bill, basically say we will have to pass it find out what is actually in it...great legislating by the way...they are now so used to punting and passing on any major decisions they actually have put way more pressure on the Supreme Court than necessary...they have decided it is better to make 9 un-elected justices make the tough decisions because they are too scared to lose their next election...the only good name for most of the people in the legislature is dirtball fucker...

Johnny Abruzzo

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

They would need to take the House back. Not sure if that's gonna happen. Looks like some loser is running for Dem in my House district (PA-7). :roll:

Whoa - check out what the GOP did to my district - I don't know if I'm even in this district anymore?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/name-that-district-contest-pennsylvanias-7th-district/2011/12/19/gIQAWaPI7O_blog.html

peacefrompaul

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

They would need to take the House back. Not sure if that's gonna happen. Looks like some loser is running for Dem in my House district (PA-7). :roll:

Whoa - check out what the GOP did to my district - I don't know if I'm even in this district anymore?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/name-that-district-contest-pennsylvanias-7th-district/2011/12/19/gIQAWaPI7O_blog.html

Gerrymandering at its finest. It's all part of the game.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

_ wrote:

I called in February to try to get an appointment with a specialist. I was told their next available appointment is in 2013. And before I can schedule that, I need to see my primary care provider for a referral. His next available appointment is in June.

That's all I'm gonna say about the U.S. healthcare system right now.

I'm sure many of us have had that same experience. Need to see a specialist, need the referral, wait several weeks or more to get in, wait and wait and wait in the waiting room to get in. They say they were booked, sorry for the wait but you see no one else leaving the place. You finally get in there and they whisk you through a short series of questions. They give you a prescription or send you to physical therapy.

By the time you finally either get the problem fixed or learn to live with it, other stuff starts falling apart. So you figure- the hell with it-- go out and buy some super glue and duct tape. That ought to hold you together for a while.

Yes, health care in America. What else can you say?

This is a ridiculous distortion of facts and the problem with the whole debate. What kind of specialist is he looking for? That one is the only one of its kind? C'mon.

a) This has nothing to do with insurance
b) This would only get worse (if anything) with a National plan


Regardless, the point is, if you had a MANAGED CARE coverage, and you let them know the issues you were having, they'd help you. More healthy members provide greater profit (if that's what you think their sole motive is), not lingering ones that exacerbate. And if your PCP is not seeing you, that's most likely a contractual no-no that your plan would like to know about.

Both issues raised here are problems with PROVIDERS, not the carriers. Those providers become gov't workers (in effect) under a national plan. Do you think that creates greater incentive for them to work or less?

I don't see how the referral you both are alluding to has effected anything since you both say the providers you want to see won't see you. Isn't that the problem? What does that have to do with the referral?

I was looking for an endocrinologist. There are three that are in-network for my (relatively good) insurance plan. They work in the same practice & it was a year wait to get in to see anyone at that practice.

This is about our healthcare system as a whole & the kind of untimely care that people get even with good insurance - even with managed care coverage. They do not help you. It may seem logical that they should, but they won't. Nothing about our current healthcare system is based in logic. And, no, this is not a contractual no-no that my plan would like to know about. They already know. I'm sure they're sick of hearing it. My PCP is seeing as many people as is humanly possible - all of the PCPs who are in-network are. The contractual problem lies with the fact that who I see is limited by my insurance coverage.

This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.

The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

I was looking for an endocrinologist. There are three that are in-network for my (relatively good) insurance plan. They work in the same practice & it was a year wait to get in to see anyone at that practice.

This is about our healthcare system as a whole & the kind of untimely care that people get even with good insurance - even with managed care coverage. They do not help you. It may seem logical that they should, but they won't. Nothing about our current healthcare system is based in logic. And, no, this is not a contractual no-no that my plan would like to know about. They already know. I'm sure they're sick of hearing it. My PCP is seeing as many people as is humanly possible - all of the PCPs who are in-network are. The contractual problem lies with the fact that who I see is limited by my insurance coverage.

This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.

The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.

You do not have a good insurance if they only have 1 practice of Endocrinologists in your network. So, let's start there. Why are there no other Endocrins in the network? Because the insurance company absolutely, positively only wants 1 group? Ummm. That makes no sense. I work on the inside and I know that's not the case. But, feel free to answer.

2nd - if your insurance is unwilling to help you, again - you do not have good insurance. You get what you pay for. My company would most certainly help you. Then, again, we would never BE ABLE TO (read that again) BE ABLE TO get away with contracting with 1 group for that type (or any type) of specialty. And, as an employer, I would most certainly never purchase such insurance for my employees (and as an individual consumer, I'd never purchase such a thing). Why are we better consumers for our cell phones than our health care?

You think there's no logic because you are uneducated about it. And your last statement is a fabrication. Kaiser has the best outcomes for the lowest cost of pretty much any health care system in the world. And it's a very tight lock in HMO.

And anyone who thinks access to providers will improve under National Health care, do a little research. That is the single biggest issue. And, it also doesn't eliminate a tiered system. It makes it worse. The wealthy get their services faster b/c they purchase consierge insurance plans with THE BEST doctors while everyone else waits for their non-emergent care (not every single visit. Just like in the US it's not EVERY single visit your examples speak of. I go to an Endocrin, and I never have an issue getting an appointment. I guess mine just likes me better).

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.

The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.

I'm back for more - first - I said EFFECTIVELY gov't employees. If the Gov't is providing all your income, I think EFFECTIVELY is a proper modifier. Don't be like the media and miss important words that change the meaning of a commentary. That's yet another problem with this and other debates of its kind.

Second - Medicare FFS was OUT OF CONTROL cost wise and showed the poorest outcomes (relative to EXPECTED outcomes) of any segment of the US health care system. Managed Care Medicare has done a far superior job of controlling costs with better coverage and results for Seniors (members have greater coverage opting into a Managed Care plan). Yes, there still needs to be more done. But, your last statement is so wrong, it needed another more specific rebuttal.

The problem with a lot of studies folks use on the last one is that the populations compared are not homogeneous. Additionally, in the US we have a far greater "keep them alive" mentality. I have no issue with that. But, the vast majority of expense are spent in the last 6 months of life in the US. Other countries with Nat'l Health Care do not have that issue. And this does greater damage to those dying. If our Hospice and palliative care programs were more widely understood and accpeted, folks would live more fruitful, comfortable lives in their last days, and expenses would go down. That's not as big an issue in other countries. (and yes - this is the Obama or the Republicans or whoever mentions this is deciding who lives and who dies proviso - another unfortunate simplification of the issue that prevents us from making real headway).

Johnny Abruzzo

My understanding of national health systems is that the only real drawback is long wait times to see specialist doctors for non-emergency care. I'd be willing to put up with that, of course. Some already put up with that in our current system anyway.

EdsonNascimento

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

My understanding of national health systems is that the only real drawback is long wait times to see specialist doctors for non-emergency care. I'd be willing to put up with that, of course. Some already put up with that in our current system anyway.

Poor outcomes is another (how could waiting for a specialist visit result in good outcomes in either instance)? That line of reasoning is so illogical. A good system would make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before the exacerbation. There are plans that do that. And it's not currently nor ever will be the Government. They are simply a payment mechancim.

Expense is another. It is far more expensive than other options that we are somehow unwilling to explore because a profit might be made. Let's think outside the box.

And, so far I think I've had 3 commentaries saying the biggest problem of our CURRENT system is the long waits and inability to get in to see a doctor. So, it seems others are not so accepting of that "little" (my word) drawback you are so willing to go with. And, this can be prevented to provide better outcomes.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

I was looking for an endocrinologist. There are three that are in-network for my (relatively good) insurance plan. They work in the same practice & it was a year wait to get in to see anyone at that practice.

This is about our healthcare system as a whole & the kind of untimely care that people get even with good insurance - even with managed care coverage. They do not help you. It may seem logical that they should, but they won't. Nothing about our current healthcare system is based in logic. And, no, this is not a contractual no-no that my plan would like to know about. They already know. I'm sure they're sick of hearing it. My PCP is seeing as many people as is humanly possible - all of the PCPs who are in-network are. The contractual problem lies with the fact that who I see is limited by my insurance coverage.

This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.

The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.

You do not have a good insurance if they only have 1 practice of Endocrinologists in your network. So, let's start there. Why are there no other Endocrins in the network? Because the insurance company absolutely, positively only wants 1 group? Ummm. That makes no sense. I work on the inside and I know that's not the case. But, feel free to answer.

2nd - if your insurance is unwilling to help you, again - you do not have good insurance. You get what you pay for. My company would most certainly help you. Then, again, we would never BE ABLE TO (read that again) BE ABLE TO get away with contracting with 1 group for that type (or any type) of specialty. And, as an employer, I would most certainly never purchase such insurance for my employees (and as an individual consumer, I'd never purchase such a thing). Why are we better consumers for our cell phones than our health care?

You think there's no logic because you are uneducated about it. And your last statement is a fabrication. Kaiser has the best outcomes for the lowest cost of pretty much any health care system in the world. And it's a very tight lock in HMO.

And anyone who thinks access to providers will improve under National Health care, do a little research. That is the single biggest issue. And, it also doesn't eliminate a tiered system. It makes it worse. The wealthy get their services faster b/c they purchase consierge insurance plans with THE BEST doctors while everyone else waits for their non-emergent care (not every single visit. Just like in the US it's not EVERY single visit your examples speak of. I go to an Endocrin, and I never have an issue getting an appointment. I guess mine just likes me better).

I assume they only have one practice in network because it's the practice where I work. And we are the second-largest employer in the state (next to the federal government).

What exactly does "I work on the inside" mean? I appreciate you giving me the freedom to answer.

I don't have insurance because insurance companies suck. But I have better insurance than most people I know. The only time I've had better coverage is when I was covered by a publicly-funded program.

We're better cell phone consumers in large part because cell phone companies are infinitely more consumer-friendly than insurance companies. They are helpful. They are easy to understand. And if you make a poor choice it won't possibly cost you your life. And, when it comes to insurance companies, we don't feel like we have any choice.

Just because YOU are uneducated about the research to which I'm referring doesn't mean it's a fabrication. (And making blanket assumptions about what people are educated about certainly does not make you seem any smarter.) Your assertion about Kaiser (which may or may not be true) is not relevant to the topic of healthcare reform. We are talking about our national healthcare system and its outcomes, not one particular company.

There you go again making assumptions about my education on this subject. I've done a shit-ton of research. And, again, the data speaks for itself. I'd show you, but I'm busy right now. If you cared to actually educate yourself about what I'm talking about it, I'm sure you're capable of finding it yourself.

For the sake of argument, let's just say you're right that access wouldn't get better under a national plan. It couldn't get any worse. Same with rationing. So even if the status quo remained the same in those areas, I'd rather wait a year for care and have everyone covered than wait a year for care and have millions of people dying & going bankrupt due to medical bills and lack of coverage.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

This would only get better with a national health plan. I'd be able to see anyone. I'd be able to call around until I found the doc who could see me first. This would create greater incentive for the providers. The providers would NOT be government employees under a national health plan. That bears repeating: The providers would not be government employees under a national health plan - not any more than they're health insurance employees now.

The research clearly shows that health care & health outcomes - and healthcare expenditures - improve with national programs.

I'm back for more - first - I said EFFECTIVELY gov't employees. If the Gov't is providing all your income, I think EFFECTIVELY is a proper modifier. Don't be like the media and miss important words that change the meaning of a commentary. That's yet another problem with this and other debates of its kind.

Second - Medicare FFS was OUT OF CONTROL cost wise and showed the poorest outcomes (relative to EXPECTED outcomes) of any segment of the US health care system. Managed Care Medicare has done a far superior job of controlling costs with better coverage and results for Seniors (members have greater coverage opting into a Managed Care plan). Yes, there still needs to be more done. But, your last statement is so wrong, it needed another more specific rebuttal.

The problem with a lot of studies folks use on the last one is that the populations compared are not homogeneous. Additionally, in the US we have a far greater "keep them alive" mentality. I have no issue with that. But, the vast majority of expense are spent in the last 6 months of life in the US. Other countries with Nat'l Health Care do not have that issue. And this does greater damage to those dying. If our Hospice and palliative care programs were more widely understood and accpeted, folks would live more fruitful, comfortable lives in their last days, and expenses would go down. That's not as big an issue in other countries. (and yes - this is the Obama or the Republicans or whoever mentions this is deciding who lives and who dies proviso - another unfortunate simplification of the issue that prevents us from making real headway).

Yeah, I caught that "effectively" - and I'm still saying you're wrong. Don't be like the media and add words that change the meaning of a commentary so you can't technically be accused of lying when your intent is still to make people think things that aren't true.

Second - What's your point? That our national health plan should be a Managed Care Medicare system?

Yes, most of direct services expenses are spent on end-of-life care. And I have no problem with that. But you're failing to mention the OUTRAGEOUS expenses that are not associated with direct care that are part of the private health insurance bureaucracy. That's what we need to be concerned with.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

My understanding of national health systems is that the only real drawback is long wait times to see specialist doctors for non-emergency care. I'd be willing to put up with that, of course. Some already put up with that in our current system anyway.

Poor outcomes is another (how could waiting for a specialist visit result in good outcomes in either instance)? That line of reasoning is so illogical. A good system would make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before the exacerbation. There are plans that do that. And it's not currently nor ever will be the Government. They are simply a payment mechancim.

Expense is another. It is far more expensive than other options that we are somehow unwilling to explore because a profit might be made. Let's think outside the box.

And, so far I think I've had 3 commentaries saying the biggest problem of our CURRENT system is the long waits and inability to get in to see a doctor. So, it seems others are not so accepting of that "little" (my word) drawback you are so willing to go with. And, this can be prevented to provide better outcomes.

You're not seriously suggesting that we have better health outcomes than the other developed nations with national health plans, are you?? Or that we make sure high risk patients get non-emergent care before exacerbation of their problems? :?

Do you have data to support your claim that national health plans are far more expensive than private, for-profit plans?

I've been one of your commentaries saying one of the problems (certainly not the biggest) of our current system is the long waits to be seen. But you're certainly not speaking for me if you're drawing the conclusion that I wouldn't be more accepting of this if it meant everyone had coverage.

Johnny Abruzzo

This is great:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html

EdsonNascimento

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is great:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html

So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?

I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:

Johnny Abruzzo

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is great:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html

So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?

I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:

If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)

Point is, it's not the same thing.

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is great:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html

The fact that this guy is a Law professor leads me to believe that he is applying the militia act to this case to completely obfuscate what mandate means in regards to which provisions of the constitution. Basically this was a conscription act for national defense and had nothing to do with commerce. Those are vastly different and bringing the militia mandate into play is rather strange. In my opinion it is a purposeful misunderstanding. It would be similar to a draft today, except saying that if you are called into service you need to buy your own gun as one will not be provided for you. Much different than forcing the public to purchase a private product today for commerce reasons. A more likely comparison would be a federal law requiring someone to purchase a gun and bullets to protect themselves from their neighbors. Those are different things. The health insurance reform act isn't national defense related without a thin overreaching immunization argument. Which, surprisingly I don't agree with... So I suppose someone can go ahead and site this as precedent, but it doesn't seem like a very strong argument ( IMO of course ). He is a pretty learned guy but I find this whole open letter really strange to read
he should also know that state's have police powers...so state mandates are very different than a national mandate. Gov't can force money be paid to them in the form of taxes. It cannot force me to give you money...even if you were the one receiving the benefits directly from my money...you see they have the power to TAX they do not have the power to avoid calling it a tax because it would be political suicide.

his answer in retort to the burial insurance? Could have been life as well. It is the exact same premise...You cannot approve of an unconstitutional item because it does good for the a lot of people. Nor can you discount the result of granting that power to the legislative branch when they already had the ability to fund this through actual powers. If the court buys the commerce clause for the mandate argument I will be pretty surprised. But then again...

I don't know...The constitution is truly amazing. I am amazed that people who read the same document get to such different conclusions...as frustrating as it can be I am glad that we have it that way. The pressure that is constantly on the Justices has got to be crushing. But then again...those people got there for a reason...