Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

There's no such thing as a "mandated corporatist/fascist health care system". Universal coverage means putting everyone into the same risk pool. The health insurance mandate is a step towards larger pools.

I think people get a little too hung up on the public option. Would it really matter whether everyone was covered by a government-operated pool, or by a single non-profit health insurer, or even a single for-profit health insurer that operated under heavy government supervision? It matters if people are covered by a mix of the above, but only because that means we have a bunch of people in separate pools.The reason for pooling everybody into a single risk pool is to exploit monopsony power and drive down the cost of care by telling doctors and providers that if they don't provide at such-and-such a rate, there's nobody else to provide to. At that point I don't really see how it matters who administrates the pool; it's one of those "waste" issues, maybe, but the quality of care will be determined by what rates the risk-pool is allowed to offer.

You never explained why, if this policy "enriches health care insurance companies" - who now can only put 20% of premiums towards administration and profit - those very same companies spent millions lobbying against the bill.Is it even just slightly possible, Dronester, that you don't understand the issues, here?

I didn't make either of those claims. Could you elaborate?

What they relate to is Taq's message 8, which those remarks were a reply to.

But this isn't a tax increase, it's an avoidable tax penalty. The only people who wind up paying the tax penalty are the people who try to foist their health care expenses off on others by showing up to the emergency room without coverage.

Setting aside that this "study" has already been debunked - since payments to doctors are the number 1 driver of high medical costs, wouldn't they be against any reform that would address high medical costs?