Breaking News:

The Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of President Obama's health care overhaul, in effect allowing the law to survive.

In a 5-4 decision unveiled Thursday, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in making the decision.

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 ... z1z6Fmdhm3

it is quite interesting. I've always said, if the mandate would be called a tax, congress could have never pushed it through. But if it was called and passed as a tax, we would never have been before the high court. I personally would have told congress to call a duck a duck and try again. But, I'm just a working stiff.

Of course, Clement could have argued (months ago) that it was never intended to be a tax, but then Scalia's head would have exploded citing legislative history.

US really have a crappy way of financing health care, and as far as I am concerned - "obamacare" seems to be like pissing your pants when freezing.

You probably have at least 4-6% of GDP to gain from getting your act togheter and get an effective system(economical efficiency can be measured, ideology and principles can not)?

My guess is there are second hand advatages as well; crime probably would decrease if everyone was covered (health care wise).

There's nothing the Federal government can't do.

Or won't do!

Well, to me as an "outsider" it seems they do very little. That would be just fine if it were not for taking up 35% of GDP in taxes and even so run up a deficit of 10% of GDP. That sums up to 45% of GDP.

That is exactly the proportion swedes pay in taxes to a government that keeps figures in the black. So, tax + deficit we pay the same.

What I get (part of it):

- Free helathcare (grown ups pay $34 fee per visit, max $128 per year, kids free), even at private hospitals. There is no cost restriction, if you are unlucky (get sick for real) you can run a tab for millions - no problem.
- Dental care is free for "kids" up to the year they turn 20.
- Free school, from six years old up to doctorate at good universities. You pay for litterature, but can borrow some for free at public library. Everyone learns english, most study a third language as well.
- "Student grant" of something like $360 per month and governent student loan of up too $930 per month during semesters. Interest rate is now 1,5%. This is for living expences.
- Kindergarden for my two kids is $225 per month. That is great service with educated personal - our kids love it. We can both work full time if we fancy it. I you don´t want this when the kids are 1-3 years old you can stay at home and get $430 per month per child instead.
- Parental leave; about 14 months per child with 80% of salary up too something like $3.500 per month. And yes, you do get parental leave from work, and are welcome back after a year or so.
- A monthly tax free grant of about $160 per child (a bit more the more kids you have).
- Public pension. An automaticly balanced system that will give my generation 45-55% of life salary from age 65, up to a salary of about $4.300 per month. 2/3 of all employers pay centrally bartered "service pension", most often a defined benefit of 3-5% of salary up to $4.600 per month and 20-30% on higher salary. The need to save more is at best none, and at worst "not that great". Many people save $70-140 a month (tax deductible) from 30-40 years of age and I guess they will have a bit softer cushion.
- Sick leave; 65-80% of salary after one day away from work, up to maximum salary of something like $3.000-3.500 per month. If you need it the rest of your life, you will get it the rest of your life (pretty hard control though).
- Unemplyment incuranse. I pay a premium of $13 per month to get 80% of salary (maximum $2.150 per month) from day one unemployment. This is a system organized by private association but partly funded by the government. Many unions have private incuranse that backs this up further; I pay $34 per month to my union and get 80% up to a salary of $14.300 a month during six months of unemployment.
- Great, and cheap public tranportation. There is no problem getting from one side of town to the other, or between citys fast, safe and pretty cheap.
- Even though I have traditional life insurance (pay some $20 per month for $285.000) my kids (or spouse) would get hundreds of dollars a month from the "governemnt insurance" if I die before they are grown up.
- By law five weeks of payed vacation per year. I get six weeks from my employer, my fiancé who is a teacher is looking at 10-11 even though she work longer days.

I am not that political about this, I don´t want to force this on someone. I am simply saying I would be kind of pissed off paying for all this without getting anything for it. Seriously, what are americans getting for 35% tax and 10% deficit (45% of GDP)?

We get a government that continuously takes more and more of our freedoms.

Well said!

I quickly tire of these European countries who think they have the path to the promised land. Economies of scale issues aside, I have met many, worked with many and are friends with many who dislike the system in their motherland. The dutch living in the US seem to complain the most.

Here's where it all goes:



The three biggest chunks of that pie are Medicare (23%), Social Security (20%), and the military (19%).

I was dissapointed in the ruling, but not because I dislike the idea of government healthcare. Obamacare did too little and cost too much.

We need real reform, with a single payer system. Not this mandated third party health insurance nonsense.

I guess this is really politically sensetive to you and I respect that. Please note though that I did not say swedish wellfare state is "the solution", or even "good" - I said paying for a swedish wellfare state and getting a swedish wellfare state is far superior to paying for a swedish well far state and not getting it (the US of today).

The US system would seem as a reasonable alternative too me if you payed 15-20% of GDP in taxes (now or tomorrow through deficit). That way any hard working person could afford a decent living situation.

Sweden was governed by well fare hugging social democrats for 90% av the time from the 1930:s, and the well fare system of 2006 was riddled with problems. I not only voted for the center-right opposition that since then ruled Sweden, I actually worked for them - and voted for the most "right" part of the ruling alliance of four partys in the election 2006 and again 2010. Taxes has come down from 52-53% of GDP to 45%, and many reforms have been made to improve swedish economy (wish is strong even at times as these). In a international comparison though, the swedish system is a far evolved wellfare state, that even the right wing in Sweden hesitate to completely dismantle (myself incluyded).

Things is not always black or white. Somestimes stuff is a bit more complex (greyish). The swedish wellfare state still has problems and even abnormalities - but so do every economical system that ever existed. The way to decent policy and smooth running countrys is realising there is no perfect stystem.

I am not saying nordic style wellfare state is great. What I am saying is US style "pay through the nose and get crumbs" truly, madly and deeply SUCKS.

Out of curiosity I wonder how may Europeans come to the U.S. for medical treatment?

The reason I ask this is I had a friend who's mother (from France) came to the U.S. for cancer treatment. She recovered and is now in remission.

I've heard of other similar situations. If we go towards social medicine that better than average care might possibly go away. What do you think?

Interesting you mention France, wich according to the WHO has among the worlds best health care... I could imagine hundreds of reasons for someone to get care in another country, without regard for quality.

Even though I am convinced some hospitals/doctors etc in the US is best in their field (and the general level is at par with OECD counterparts), this misses my point - wich is all about "getting what you pay for".

We can turn it the other way. If Sweden were to skip free college for everyone, payed parental leave, cash subsidy to children and implement less generous unemployment- and sick leave benefits and use the savings to lower taxes, Sweden might end up with something like 2/3 of the taxes/deficits as the US - and still have a more generous wellfare state.

As previously stated; "the US model" (whatever that is now a days) only makes sense to me as an alternative to european wellfare state if taxes were really, really low (10-20% of GDP). The chanse US will end up there in your lifetime seems slim? The chanses (or risk depending on political colour) we will see a major build in US publicly financed wellfare during that time is even more unlikely (am I wrong)?

I understand what you are saying.

Still it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a degree in medicine here in the U.S. So many drop out before they even finish. Then they have to do a residency for a good three or four years...

I agree the system needs to be fixed but one of the reasons many people get into the medical field (and go into an enourmous amount of school debt) is because they know they can make a good living while helping a lot people at the same time.

The new system will, in my opinion, turn off a lot of potentially great candidates to this industry.