cur-mud-geon: anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so; anyone with the habit of pointing out unpleasant facts in an engaging and humorous manner
The U.S. Supreme Court enters its second day of hearings concerning PPACA (a/k/a ObamaCare) and will decide the various questions that have been raised. There are, as is usual in matters of this nature, many nuances that are often difficult to fathom. Among the issues is whether or not we can be compelled to take an action, buy health insurance coverage, and whether or not the fine for not doing so would be a tax or a penalty, and so on. Underlying much of this is the fact that the government intentionally eliminated the "severability clause" which is present in most contracts. That clause basically says that even if part of the contract is struck down, the rest survives.
There are strange bedfellows at work in this case. Health insurers were quite pleased with the idea that everyone would be required to buy insurance even though they would be held to new loss ratio rules (which most in the group health arena were already observing to stay competitive). Hospitals were quite pleased with the idea that they would not be required to give away treatment to those without insurance since everyone would have insurance, even though they would operate under whole new rule sets and reimbursement schedules. Those who had been unable to find insurance were quite pleased that they now could not be turned down. And on and on and on. Doctors were not all pleased since they would be subject to more and more fee controls that would shrink their income, and would be subject to more practice directives that would limit their freedom of choice so far as treatments used.
The public is more displeased that it is pleased with ObamaCare. A plurality now wants ObamaCare ended. That being said, there are a bunch of dependents now up to the age of 26 with coverage under their parents' health plans. The Catholic church is smarting from President Obama's directive that they will provide contraceptives and abortive drugs even as that flies in the face of their religious doctrine. The President softened his stance but that did virtually nothing to salve the wounds the Catholics felt. That story remains unfinished and the court's decision will figure heavily in that debate.
At the base of this case is the issue of whether or not our government has over-stepped its power as granted by our Constitution, and whether or not this is simply another step down the slippery slope. While health care is the buzzword, usurpation of Constitutional rights granted to you and me is at the very heart of this case.
I am convinced that ObamaCare does, in fact, overstep the government's powers and that this case is all about our rights and basic freedoms. If ObamaCare is not struck down, or at least greatly diminished, we will have lost a huge piece of our freedom. If this health care program stands as is, there is absolutely no limit to what our government can do for us, but more importantly to us.