I can see this court ruling either way, and can think of reasonable explanations for both scenarios. However, in the end, I think that the US will eventually end up with universal coverage one way or another. If the mandate is struck down, I can see the Dems doing better in November, as it will take the wind out of the sails of the GOP (Without Obamacare to rail against, and an improving economy, Romney won't have a strong rallying cry). Whenever the Dems get a house majority again, they will probably create a version of a public option in order to fight the continuous rise in costs. I could see this coming at a State level option, maybe as an extension of Medicaid. Alternately, if the mandate isn't struck down, I see some states figuring out effective coverage solutions within the new scheme, and these spreading to other states that want to emulate their success. At any rate, conservative intellectualism seems homeless in this country.
I forget if it was discussed on here or somewhere else, but the reason the costs of pills are lower in other countries is that the single-payer gives the government a lot of leverage in bargaining with pharmaceutical companies to decide their prices. Medicare has a similar power, too a lesser extent, too, but the increased fragmentation of the insured population in the US lowers each's bargaining power.
- At any rate, conservative intellectualism seems homeless in this country.
I disagree. It is alive and well in the Democratic Party. Let's not forget that the mandate was the brain child of Republicans back in the early 90s when the Clintons were trying to adopt universal health care.
- At any rate, conservative intellectualism seems homeless in this country.
I disagree. It is alive and well in the Democratic Party. Let's not forget that the mandate was the brain child of Republicans back in the early 90s when the Clintons were trying to adopt universal health care.