Decision seriously flawed

  • Follow Letters

The June 28 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act has been viewed as a major victory for one political party. However, some of the ACA’s downstream consequences look a lot like a defeat for many Americans. Why?

First and foremost, the ACA’s individual mandate intrudes on the principles of individual freedoms that the Constitution was designed to protect. If one’s purchasing decisions are now subject to arbitrary legislation, then what comes next? I shudder to think. Broccoli, anyone?

Second, employers, particularly smaller businesses, may legitimately respond by trimming their staffs or, even worse, by not hiring new employees. This looks like an economic poison pill that will seriously underfund other jeopardized federal programs such as Medicare, sending their rightful beneficiaries running for nonexistent cover.

Third, the real affordability of health-insurance premiums remains to be determined, not only for those with pre-existing conditions who tend to be older and more costly, but for younger, healthier buyers who may have to bear even more of the brunt of the former group.

Fourth, the obvious lack of tort reform virtually guarantees the continued practice of defensive medicine – certainly not a cost-saver! As a seriously flawed piece of legislation, passed by dint of a single party’s majorities in both houses of Congress, it is now upheld by a majority court opinion whose narrow margin was assured by a justice who should have recused herself for previous involvement in the crafting of the ACA.

Many Americans will become the dubious “beneficiaries” of an act that most of us did not want in the first place, and will now haunt us for the foreseeable future.

Lawrence Devoe

Augusta

Comments (23) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/30/12 - 05:57 am
3
6
""That every citizen, so

""That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; (emp mine) and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound"

effete elitist liberal
3147
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/30/12 - 08:03 am
0
5
Broccoli, anyone?

How about "Auto Insurance, anyone?" "[T]he ACA’s individual mandate intrudes on the principles of individual freedoms that the Constitution was designed to protect. If one’s purchasing decisions are now subject to arbitrary legislation, then what comes next?" What about the auto insurance mandate in the state of Georgia? Does that intrude on your freedom too? Georgia law mandates that drivers purchase liability insurance. I guess the demise of our Constitution started in Georgia long before ACA.

dichotomy
34502
Points
dichotomy 06/30/12 - 08:07 am
5
1
Yeh that's really relevant

Yeh that's really relevant Techfan.......you forgot to mention it was not challenged in court because the publice actually SUPPORTED it. It was probably unconstitutional too. So is Obamacare except for the fact that Roberts decided to re-write it.

The fact is Obamacare will provide more FREE STUFF to the usual suspects paid for on the backs of SENIORS and MIDDLE CLASS working people. The freeloaders STILL PAY NOTHING. And since the Democrats and Obama LIED to us when calculating the cost, and now we know it will cost at least twice what they said in the first 20 years, the TAXES ARE JUST BEGINNING. Obamacare will consume our economy and if you don't believe there is a mirror that sees into the future right across the Atlantic. It's called the European Economic Collapse.

Conservative Man
5577
Points
Conservative Man 06/30/12 - 09:26 am
5
0
Effite....No comparison. If

Effite....No comparison. If people who post that garbage about car insurance would do their research (something that's sorely lacking on the left) they'd know that there is NO mandate that says you HAVE to buy insurance on a car. Only if you CHOOSE to drive on the public roadways do you have to be insured. If you live on a farm and the vehicle never leaves your property no insurance is required. Choice my friend....Something that we no longer have concerning health insurance....

effete elitist liberal
3147
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/30/12 - 09:57 am
1
6
"Effite" [sic]

CM, OK you're SOOOO right, you do not have to buy insurance on a car you do not drive. You sure got me there! OK, now let's talk about the vehicle that farm family uses to drive to the grocery store or the doctor's office. In other words, let's talk about the real world, where people drive actual cars on actual public roads. The state of Georgia MANDATES that those people must purchase auto insurance. In SC, they can post a bond of financial security, but the result is the same: you drive, you pay. "IT'S THE LAW!" And don't forget to buckle up....

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 06/30/12 - 10:08 am
4
0
Apples to oranges

To compare car insurance to health insurance even in the real world is not a fair comparison. My wife doesn't have a car in her name so, you guessed it, she doesn't have any car insurance. To compare the two in the same discussion is a waste of time. So get to something that you can compare, if you can.

wagoss
55
Points
wagoss 06/30/12 - 11:13 am
4
0
Auto Insurance vs. Health Insurance

I'm so tired of people comparing the mandate for health insurance to the existing mandate for auto insurance. Auto insurance is only mandated to drive a car, where as the health insurance mandate is required if you are just living. Driving a car is not a requirement, although I think no one would argue that it is a huge help in this day. You can still walk or ride a bicycle though, therefore you do NOT HAVE to purchase auto insurance. What choice do you have for health insurance? Let's see, if you are living, you must purchase health insurance. That doesn' seem like much of a choice to me!

effete elitist liberal
3147
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/30/12 - 12:26 pm
2
5
real world

Yes, it is true that you do not have to drive a car, which is why people who do not are not required to have insurance. But in the real world, not matter if a person is healthy today and has "never been sick a day in his life," the time will come when he will get sick and will go if not to a doctor, to an emergency room. So in the real world essentially everyone will consume medical services eventually. I do not want to pay for it if the individual chose not to have insurance.

Truth Matters
7217
Points
Truth Matters 06/30/12 - 12:37 pm
3
2
Health Care

I am still waiting for the opposers of the ACA to tell us why it is when the Heritage Foundation suggested this years ago it was the best thing since apple pie? What changed????? Even Mitt Romney said the US could learn something from his state. Again, what changed???

If you are insuring your family as all responsible people should, you have nothing to worry about. Why would you not want those who can afford care to be allowed to let the rest of us pay for it?

Just think, people who choose to buy AirJordans, get that tatoo, or nails and a weave, will now have to first get insurance or pay a penalty. Now that's a conservative dream, don't you think?!!!!!

(tongue in cheek...)

Conservative Man
5577
Points
Conservative Man 06/30/12 - 02:36 pm
4
1
We used to take care of the

We used to take care of the poor with Medicare or Medicaid. Paid for by MY taxes. I was responsible enough to get my own insurance. And didn't mind paying (involuntarily I might add) into a system that provided for this. Now I'm being told that because some Socialist Utopian nut jobs want to buy the votes of the poor and illegals, I MUST buy a product NOT of my choosing.......
No matter how you lefties spin it....It flies in the face of individual freedom AND responsibility.....
But really who are we kidding here..This ruling just handed the White House to the Republicans. All that's needed now is a simple majority in the Senate (very likely) and this monstrosity will be repealed......
Gloat while you can.....six months from now Obama's Folly will history...

KSL
134766
Points
KSL 06/30/12 - 03:48 pm
4
1
Techfan

Didn't you post that first post on another thread yesterday? You must have a serious sticking key problem. Isn't that comment violation?

CobaltGeorge
165065
Points
CobaltGeorge 06/30/12 - 03:38 pm
5
0
wagoss

Very well done, took care of the little argument.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/30/12 - 04:24 pm
1
6
Since many the people who

Since many the people who wrote that were signatories of the Constitution, they might have a clue about what was and what wasn't Consitutional.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/30/12 - 04:28 pm
0
6
"■repeats the same message

"■repeats the same message under multiple threads or subjects". he quote from the Militia Act on 1792 is on a post discussing the same subject, therfore, not a violation.

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 04:53 pm
5
1
EEF- Being an American comes

EEF- Being an American comes with certain rights driving a car is a PRIVILEDGE GRANTED,READ THAT GRANTED by EACH STATE! Not EVRYBODY IS ALLOWED THE PRIVILEDGE TO DRIVE. NOT EVERY BODY IS ALLOWED TO OWN A CAR..DO you under stand, I typed really slowly so you can understand. The state can take away my priviledge of driving. I don't think the state or federal government can take away my citizenship DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? THERE IS NO FEDERAL US DRIVERS LICENSE, each state has differant rules and requirements to receive and drivers license. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ISSUE DRIVERS LICENSES..EACH STATE REGULATE THE PRIVILEDGE OF DRIVING AS IT SEES FIT.. Example in some states a teenager can not have another minor in the car while driving, in some states you can get a farm license and people as young as 12 can drive farm vehicles on public roads as long as the conditons set by the state are meet. This was typed very slowly so you can understand!

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 04:40 pm
5
0
Techfan- Raiseing an army is

Techfan- Raising an army is one of the actual responsibilities of the federal government per the constitution, now show me where the constitution allows the government to regulate or prescribe health care..I will wait..

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 04:42 pm
5
0
My mother died in her 80's,

My mother died in her 80's, never owned a car or drove..never had car insurance. In New York there are thousands of people that don't own cars and live just fine (they don't buy car insurance either), is that real world enough for you?

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 04:49 pm
4
1
Car ownership in New York

Car ownership in New York City. Among all NYC households, 46 percent own cars, according to Census data gathered between 2005 and 2009, compared to 44.3 percent in 2000. Factoring in Census data on the number of cars each household owns, that adds up to about 120,000 more cars in New York City. This is from http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/04/06/new-yorks-car-ownership-rate-is-on... Now do you think the people that don’t own cars are required to buy car insurance? Is this real world enough? Does this demonstrate the fallacy of the Health insurance car insurance argument? Now everybody that does or doesn’t own a car is required to buy health insurance!

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 04:52 pm
5
1
Driving can be restricted

Driving can be restricted because of medical conditions, the Democrats make sure even those who are dead vote, but only for Democrats! Notice a differance?

KSL
134766
Points
KSL 06/30/12 - 05:00 pm
4
1
What does "multiple threads"

What does "multiple threads" mean? Is it ok because they were on different days?

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 07:15 pm
3
1
Still waiting for Techfan to

Still waiting for Techfan to show me where the constitution allows the federal government to regulate health care like it allows the federal government to raise a standing army, the crickets are chirping....I will wait..

KSL
134766
Points
KSL 06/30/12 - 07:35 pm
3
1
Southern Leslie is waiting on

Southern Leslie is waiting on Techfan, too.

carcraft
27171
Points
carcraft 06/30/12 - 09:55 pm
2
1
The BIGGEST differance

The BIGGEST differance between driving and being a citizen is the fact that to exercise your priviledge to drive you need a PHOTO ID, you can be a citizen and vote WITHOUT a photo ID...BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Back to Top

Top headlines

Augusta's ties to Liberia date back to 1836

Richmond County’s ties to West Africa date back to the 1830s, when plantation owner Richard Tubman wrote in his will that his slaves were to be offered freedom. More recently, Augustans have ...
Search Augusta jobs