I've only been keeping half an ear on this one -- in my admittedly-cynical view, I'm gonna get screwed in the end regardless, so I'm not too concerned with the mechanics of said screwing, if you catch my drift -- but in my probably ignorant opinion, the judge nailed the mandatory insurance angle perfectly. That is, really, the single biggest sticking point I had with the whole bill, and I agree that you can't sever that from the rest -- leastwise, not and keep a straight face when calling it the same bill afterwards.
I think it could be salvaged, if by salvaged you mean re-forged in the fires of debate and better designed the next time around. Unfortunately, what I suspect will happen (see above re: cynicism) is that the ruling will be overturned and it'll get pressed into law anyway.
While I don't make use of insurance myself -- and no, that does not mean I cause a burden upon medical services, either -- I *do* choose to carry it for my son and for my wife. And that's expensive. But medical care for them (my wife, ongoing; my son, because kids tend to have short, sporadic spasms of YE GODS the BILLS!) makes insurance worthwhile; it spreads out the payments. The issue with the bill is not higher taxes or mandatory payments; it is the lack of choice. It is the gov't taking the decision out of my hands, and I strongly object to that.
Yes, universal health care is a good thing (in theory). Yes, it comes with a large price tag, and yes, if I want it (debatable), then I must be willing to pay the price. What I object to is handing money to a private insurer. I'd rather pay more in taxes, similar to what I understand is how the EU system works. But my fellow citizens mostly seem to react with knee-jerk speed to the word "taxes" by hissing and reaching for the holy water, and of course the private insurance companies scream holy hell because it would cut into their profits.
I'd like to think that the judge understands my stance better, and more rationally, than *I* myself do, and that's why he struck it down. But as I said, I don't expect it to stop the juggernaut for long.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
I think it could be salvaged, if by salvaged you mean re-forged in the fires of debate and better designed the next time around. Unfortunately, what I suspect will happen (see above re: cynicism) is that the ruling will be overturned and it'll get pressed into law anyway.
While I don't make use of insurance myself -- and no, that does not mean I cause a burden upon medical services, either -- I *do* choose to carry it for my son and for my wife. And that's expensive. But medical care for them (my wife, ongoing; my son, because kids tend to have short, sporadic spasms of YE GODS the BILLS!) makes insurance worthwhile; it spreads out the payments. The issue with the bill is not higher taxes or mandatory payments; it is the lack of choice. It is the gov't taking the decision out of my hands, and I strongly object to that.
Yes, universal health care is a good thing (in theory). Yes, it comes with a large price tag, and yes, if I want it (debatable), then I must be willing to pay the price. What I object to is handing money to a private insurer. I'd rather pay more in taxes, similar to what I understand is how the EU system works. But my fellow citizens mostly seem to react with knee-jerk speed to the word "taxes" by hissing and reaching for the holy water, and of course the private insurance companies scream holy hell because it would cut into their profits.
I'd like to think that the judge understands my stance better, and more rationally, than *I* myself do, and that's why he struck it down. But as I said, I don't expect it to stop the juggernaut for long.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs