[lbo-talk] Obamacare and single payer & the Supreme Court

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 3 08:42:27 PST 2011


Brad: "One reason the court might not agree and throw out the mandate is because it is a corporate court and the insurance industry looses big>."

[WS:] True. Also, keep in mind that there is already a legal precedent for such mandates - worker's compensation which is mandatory and in most states administered by private insurance companies. Also car insurance. So if they void the Obamacare mandate, that may have unintended impacts on worker's comp.

I think the repugs challenge the mandates for purely populist appeal, knowing that they are unlikely to be overturned. I do not like the idea of the mandates, but I do not think it matters if they are overturned or not. The inscos will profit with or without them, and their absence will not make the single payer system any more palatable. If anything, their presence may strengthen the argument for opening medicare to people under 65 along the lines proposed by the Grayson bill http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/hr-4789-the-public-option_b_496977.html - which imho is the only way of implementing a public health insurance system in the US.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list