The New York Times can’t make up its mind on what a Supreme Court ruling against Obama health care plan’s individual mandate would mean for the overall health-care law.
On page one today, it reports this:
Whatever Court Rules, Major Changes in Health Care Likely to Last
On the website today, a news analysis , presumably going in tomorrow’s paper, says this:
Insurance Mandate May Be Health Bill’s Undoing
On the one hand, the Times tells us this:
For the nation’s health care system, there may be no going back.
No matter what the Supreme Court decides about the constitutionality of the federal law adopted last year, health care in America has changed in ways that will not be easily undone. Provisions already put in place, like tougher oversight of health insurers, the expansion of coverage to one million young adults and more protections for workers with pre-existing conditions are already well cemented and popular.
On the other hand, it says:
At the heart of the challenge is “the mandate” — a provision requiring nearly all Americans to buy coverage or pay a penalty — that he so vigorously opposed as a candidate. If it is struck down, much of his signature legislative achievement could fall with it in a decision that would undoubtedly be construed as a rebuke to the president.
The main takeaway from this coverage: The New York Times doesn’t really know what will happen to Obamacare if the individual mandate is overturned.
Ryan wrote: "The New York Times doesn’t really know what will happen to Obamacare if the individual mandate is overturned."
padikiller replies: I think we readers could have gleaned this uncertainty from the plain use of the words "may" and "likely" in the respective headlines..
But thanks, anyway.
Must be a slow day on Daily Kos and Mother Jones.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 15 Nov 2011 at 05:45 PM
I see that the MSM are still badly missing the mark. Forcing health insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition is like forcing fire insurance coverage for a house that is already burning. In fact, it is not "insurance" at all but rather a forced transfer of wealth at gunpoint. Which, of course, is nothing new under the sun in a command economy. (Not that the MSM wouldn't raise any serious legal, practical, or moral objections to central economic planning, but yeah...)
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:12 PM
There is no confusion in saying that even if the health care legislation is struck down, changes already happening in the health care field may stick.
#3 Posted by Manny, CJR on Sat 19 Nov 2011 at 04:39 PM
#2 is missing the point. Of course, such coverage for a previously uninsured person is a burden to everyone else. The problem with the present system is that a sick person can lose his existing coverage, through a job loss or something similar, and then be unable to replace it, with horrible undeserved consequences. We should understand this before we get into ideological rhetoric. We should also understand the economic consequences of people being inhibited from changing jobs, particularly from starting their own businesses, in order to maintain affordable health insurance coverage.
#4 Posted by Manny, CJR on Sat 19 Nov 2011 at 04:52 PM
The solution is simple.
Don't depend upon your employer for health care insurance. If you have employer-provided health insurance, buy a gap policy that covers you if you lose your job, or risk bankruptcy. If you don't have employer-provided insurance, then buy a private policy or risk bankruptcy.
Take some damned personal responsibility and stop expecting the "gubmint" or "somebody else" to provide health insurance for you.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 19 Nov 2011 at 06:41 PM
If you would take some personal responsibility for your soporific, atrocious, and unconvincing personal writing, 'padikiller,' we would all be a lot happier.
Why can't you admit your personal limitations and take a vow of silence?
#6 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 20 Nov 2011 at 09:16 PM
You seem to have remarkably resisted my "soporific" posts, Clayton.
You are either conscious despite them or sleep-posting in response to them.
That you are "unconvinced" of my reasoning is unsurprising, given your animus.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 20 Nov 2011 at 11:20 PM