Day 3: Supreme Court Healthcare Arguments Recap

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Avik Roy, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes The Apothecary blog on healthcare policy for Forbes, and is livechatting at National Review Online on the Supreme Court healthcare case. He brings us up to speed on today's arguments on the severability issue being heard at the Supreme Court on the Affordable Healthcare Act case.


Avik Roy

Comments [11]

S.R.Finkelstein from New Jersey

I cannot understand why health insurance is not equated with car insurance. It is mandatory that people who own or drive a car must have car insurance.

It should be mandatory that all people be covered by some form of health insurance. Just as someone driving does not know whether he will be in an accident or not, someone does not know whether or when he will become ill.

Mar. 29 2012 11:51 AM
tom LI

Someone ask someone why no one, or group has not sued the Gov't to get out of the way of selling health insurance just like Car and Home - across state lines, and offer it to individuals like any other insurance product?

It seems a no brainer, to sue the Govt to get out of the way of free-trade and Commerce, instead of trying to create it...!

Mar. 28 2012 06:52 PM

DarkSymbolist from NYC! ~


'Cept, in this Kountry®, the government is owned by the "Korporation™.

If we could trust our government to put the necessary regulation in place to make private health "insurance®" fair, then yes, by all means the Individual Mandate in the Dutch example would be fantastic.

Do you really see any evidence that regulation of our "insurance" industry is a possibility?

I don't see that ever happening, here.

Korporation™ is King in the great USA®.

Mar. 28 2012 12:30 PM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

"Why are Americans so against an Individual Mandate? It is true that being told that you have to have health insurance when you don't need it, is a bit like being forced to buy car insurance when you don't even own a car. But sooner or later everyone will need health insurance.

In Europe this problem of agreeing to get health insurance whether you want to or not has been resolved a long time ago. Europeans seem to consider it self-evident that everyone should pay for health insurance. Everyone should share in the cost as well as the benefit.

Although the Individual Mandate is a necessary ingredient of universal health care, some countries in Europe have a health care system based on private insurance. The Dutch, for instance get health insurance from private companies and there is no public option. The insurance companies are heavily regulated however and heavily subsidized. There is no cherry picking. Insurers who only insure healthy people have to pay a fee and insurers with a lot of high risk people get subsidized, so that there is a level playing field.

Private health insurance system guarantees that there is adequate competition to lower premiums to attract subscribers. Providers are also mostly private (hospitals, doctors, dentists).

Even though the Public option has been removed from the New Health Care Bill it would have been a much better solution than the Individual Mandate. It would have been a natural incentive for private insurance companies to be competitive. It's the health care equivalent of being pro-choice. The excuse given by opponents of the public option say that it would out-compete private insurance companies. But if you look at Germany, for instance, where there is a public option, the insurance companies are thriving. They actually get more money for insuring people with pre-existing conditions because they get subsidized for it.

Contrast that to the purely market driven health insurance system in the US. This drives insurance companies to NOT cover the sick, which Obamacare is trying to change. Obamacare is economically smart. It spreads the risk out so that each individual will eventually pay less.

America was founded on the principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all and proclaimed her shores with the motto: 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..' "

Mar. 28 2012 12:04 PM

Someone you love will DIE so that Ronald A. Williams can enjoy his $24,300,112 salary!!

Mar. 28 2012 12:00 PM


Agreed. It is so absurd. "Insurance" is the cause of most of our current healthcare problems.

Mar. 28 2012 11:53 AM

This FARCE is fundamentally a discussion of Korporate™ profit PROTECTION.

It is so CONVOLUTED and thoroughly UNPRODUCTIVE.

It does NOT address the TRUE issues!!

People are dying whilst this absurd discussion prattles on!!

Mar. 28 2012 11:52 AM


Its not just Roberts. Kennedy is the only justice who seems to actually decide each case on the merits of the arguments.

Mar. 28 2012 11:51 AM

Forcing me to purchase a SH*T product IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

I don't need health "insurance®", I NEED TO GO TO THE DOCTOR WHEN I'M SICK!!!

Mar. 28 2012 11:48 AM

Do the Justices need to decide today's "whole thing" vs. "mandate only" question based on Constitutionality only, or are they allowed to make a call based on the practical effect of the two scenarios?

Mar. 28 2012 11:48 AM
Kramer from nyc

What happened to having an independent, fair and equitable Judiciary?

Roberts is a very politically motivated chief, seems like he, along with the other ideological nutz, is doing the bidding of the people that put them into power.

Their decision put all reason and "starie eyes" or what ever Roberts called, by the waist side to advance a political agenda.

Mar. 28 2012 11:44 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.