PROUD: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law!

Finally, U.S. Begins Movement Toward Universal Health Care Access – A Right Of Citizenship In Every Other Civilized Nation

In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement!

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

The decision came as sharp repudiation to congressional Republicans, many of whom had expected the court to strike down at least some parts of the law.


9 responses to “PROUD: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law!

  • Madame Penelope

    That’s fantastic! I’ve been rather pessimistic about politics lately, but this has certainly brightened my day.

  • ryanlentforamerica

    Are you completely oblivious to the ramifications of this decision?! Welcome to tyranny!!

    • Coronare Modestus Faust

      Yes, being a degreed Business-Economist with twenty years experience in the health care industry and having risen to Vice-Chair of the Board of one large health care organization (and serving on the Boards of several other organizations), I am completely aware of the ramifications. That’s why I am so excited. Really, conservatives/libertarians need to take note that every other industrialized nation on the planet has some form of universal health care access and every single one of them has dramatically lower overall costs per person and dramatically better outcomes and a healthier citizenry that lends itself to a more productive employee base. Get with the program. The only tyranny about universal health care access is the lack of it in the U.S. The only tyranny Americans face is the prospect of expensive genetic conditions or diseases and being denied proper health care…which in more civilized nations is considered a right of citizenship.

      • ryanlentforamerica

        Excellent job completely deflecting my major point. Forget health care for a minute and focus on the fact that Congress now has legal and constitutional precedent to force American citizens to engage in commerce. How can you just ignore that? How is that anything BUT tyranny?!

        Do I like some parts of the ACA? Sure, but it sets an awfully dangerous precedent, don’t you think?

        • Coronare Modestus Faust

          Well, I don’t think I deflected your point…I think I am just so totally fixated on obtaining health care access for all citizens that it is my only point of focus. To your point, though, that government mandates to purchase something is tyrannical…I do understand your point, but I think the hazards of which you are concerned are not nearly so dramatic as feared and that the benefits outweigh any loss of freedom (i.e., the freedom to not participate in the health care insurance marketplace). I don’t agree with the Iraq War, but I was and am forced to pay for it, to purchase weapons and implement their destructive powers. I do support a strong military, but not the one that’s as strong and expensive as we have currently, but I am forced to purchase this armed force anyway. Without getting caught in a semantic debate about driving being a privilege and not a right, my State and yours requires us to buy auto insurance to drive, and the list goes on and on. Good laws! Being alive means you will need health care access eventually, so you are a cost and a participant with society. The cheapest way to provide and pay for such access is if every person is required to have health care insurance. You don’t have the right to shoot me in the head cause you want to, and you shouldn’t have the right to drive up health care costs by enforcing the most inefficient and expensive means of providing health care, our current system. Freedoms are never absolute, nor should they be. They are to be balanced. I believe requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance and availing all citizens of the freedom that health care access and good health facilitate is balanced. Your mileage may vary, but this is my view.

          • ryanlentforamerica

            I understand your view points, and do not exactly disagree with most of them. I do disagree that health insurance is going to be less expensive; the first renewal year of my prior company’s group policy after the ACA was enacted, we noticed a substantial increase in our health insurance costs. As a health care ‘insider’ how can you preach, and expect a knowledgable person to believe, that when health insurance companies are going to be forced into covering more people than before (speaking just to the ‘no pre-exisiting conditions portion) their profits will go up, thereby lowering their premiums? The basic economic truth is that every company needs profits and they will not simply take a hit and absorb added costs – they will place the burden on its consumers in order to maintain their profit levels.

            And just a quick point of fact – I am not required to purchase auto insurance in my state. I am also a licensed property and casualty producer in three states.

      • ryanlentforamerica

        Furthermore, you do realize that the ‘every other industrialized nation on the planet’ is in a financial crisis far worse than ours? Could there possibly be a correlation there? The Business and Economic fact is that socialism (more spefically the idea that someone else will pay for your ‘universal’ things) has failed in every nation that has implemented it. Care to comment on that point?

        • Coronare Modestus Faust

          Sure I can comment. The current economic struggles, particularly in Europe, have absolutely nothing to do with their health insurance schemes. In point of fact, how can it when their social, government, and business costs for health care are more than half our costs? And, by the way, you should know that most of these mechanisms utilize the market to a very high extent. The only thing they mandate is the thing you hate about “Obamacare,” that you are required to participate. However, to your point about economic matters in Europe, my academic area of expertise was monetary policy, and a monetary system not fully formed (immature, newly birthed) is what is causing Europe’s issues. Had they a fully formed Federal Reserve as the US, then the current chris would be well managed. If you look back in economic history, you will find that the US went through very similar pains as it developed its monetary system and US Treasury back in the day. These are birthing pains. Moreover, the bulk of Europe’s fiscal difficulties revolve around how they had to address the recent financial market crash, originated by an under-regulated US financial industry and exported via a globalized economy. These issues are very academic and should not be confused with one’s political or economic philosophies.

  • Madame Penelope

    Reblogged this on ECCE DIANA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s