Menu Close

If Supreme Court Overturns ACA Subsidies, What Kind of America Shall We Be?

The US is the only developed nation that doesn’t provide universal health care to its citizens. The ACA was a step in the wrong direction, enforcing the current medical syndicate skim of the US economy that nearly doubles the cost of medical services in the US versus other nations. The immorality and costly inefficiency of US policy is clear.

The immorality of those who oppose universal medical care, limiting it only to those who can afford it, is even clearer. It is class sociopathy at its worst.

Near elderly, middle income couples in their sixties who do not yet qualify for Medicare, currently receive subsidies of up to $8000 per year. Requiring them to pay back those subsidies would be devastating. Even worse, those receiving care for life threatening illness could be given death sentences if ACA subsidies are struck down.

This is a question of what kind of society you want–dog eat dog, every man for himself chaos, where only the fittest survive, or something more. We have a choice as a people. What do we want to be?

Join the conversation and have a little fun at Capitalstool.com. If you are a new visitor to the Stool, please register and join in! To post your observations and charts, and snide, but good-natured, comments, click here to register. Be sure to respond to the confirmation email which is sent instantly. If not in your inbox, check your spam filter.

3 Comments

  1. Xfactor07

    Universal healthcare is unconstitutional, unfair to employers, subject to massive corruption, a stealth give-away (in form of payment subsidy) and subject to arbitrary changes in the law as Obama has demonstrated. To say that other developed countries have it, is not a valid comparison; they do not have the colossal corruption that our system has (which will increase under the A.C.A.). The entire idea was poorly thought out (Pelosi even said,” we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”) and passage was rushed through. At best, the idea is much too premature.

  2. teddp

    No one has a right to healthcare, any more than they have a right to a house.  The concept of “right” cannot require someone else to give up their true rights.  

    Individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property – and to pursue happiness – but they don’t have the right to food, clothing, shelter or healthcare.  In a free society, those need to be earned or freely given.  If someone has the “right” to “free” healthcare then that means that others no longer have the right to their excess production.  It means that that it is somehow moral for elected officials to expropriate excess production (wealth) from those that have it and give it to those that don’t.

    Once can’t argue for the morality of “free” government-provided healthcare without arguing for the morality of communism.

  3. Lee Adler

    Neither you nor any individual gets to decide what is a human right and what isn’t. Free societies across the globe have voted on this, and all have decided, without exception, that access to healthcare is a human right that the government can, should and does guarantee.

    No one is under the illusion that it is free. In fact, it costs US society 70% more than every nation which provides government run or government guaranteed universal health care.

    The people of most nations long agoa decided that single payer is the most efficient and least costly way to deliver health care to all. The few that don’t, like Switzerland and Germany, treat it like a public utility, guarantee access to all, and tightly control costs.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

RSS
Follow by Email
LinkedIn
Share

Discover more from The Wall Street Examiner

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading