SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + +
Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling? (view source)
Revision as of 11:59, June 29, 2012
, 11:59, June 29, 2012Yes. The penalty provision is Constitutional
As bad as this law is, SCOTUS was right to say that, as a ''tax'', it is constitutional. On a personal level, I'm glad for this ruling, because it will force Congress to act to repeal it; and given the fact that they have been ceding their power to the executive and legislative branch for the last 30 years, this would be a good time to retake some of it. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:14, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
As bad as this law is, SCOTUS was right to say that, as a ''tax'', it is constitutional. On a personal level, I'm glad for this ruling, because it will force Congress to act to repeal it; and given the fact that they have been ceding their power to the executive and legislative branch for the last 30 years, this would be a good time to retake some of it. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:14, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
Personal responsibility is an important part of being an American. The law gives every American a choice: either get some form of health insurance or pay a penalty that will grow over time to be equal to the cost of a typical health insurance policy. The Supreme Court has held that that penalty provision is constitutional under the taxing power. The problem with the current system is that many people do not have health insurance and then go to the hospital emergency room and demand free health care. That is irresponsible and imposes a high cost on all other users of the health care system. Currently, hospitals are recovering the cost of their free care from the other paying customers. Much of the free care is provided at emergency rooms, when the same care would be less expensive if it was done at a clinic or doctor's office. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:59, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
==No==
==No==