• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Online Chat on Obamacare at the Supreme Court

    This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. The Department of HHS to evaluate the many legal questions raised by the passage of ObamaCare, including whether Congress exceeded its constitutional power when it enacted the individual mandate. Click here to join us right now for our “Lunch with Heritage” online chat. Heritage’s legal expert Robert Alt is answering all of your questions about the issues before the Court, possible decisions the Court could reach, and consequences those decisions could have on public policy.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Online Chat on Obamacare at the Supreme Court

    1. Larry DeBerry says:

      I hear mainly from the left that the Heritage foundation at one point favored a health care program similar to Obabacare. Is ther any truth behind those statements?

      • TSC says:

        In 1989, the Heritage Foundation issued a position paper titled "A National Health System for America," the full text of which can be found at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1989/a-n…. The chapter "A Framework for Reform" contains the following:

        Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.

        This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the government's accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection. This means that, while government would take on the obligation to find ways of guaranteeing care for those Americans unable to obtain protection in the market, perhaps because of chronic health problems or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.

        Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.

        Help would be provided in two ways. First, the tax code would be amended, as Chapter 3 describes, to give tax relief to individual purchasers of health insurance or prepaid plans and to provide tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses. Second, government would aid those who, because of income or medical condition, find the cost of protection to be an unreasonable burden. Such aid could take the form of vouchers for purchasing insurance or state-managed systems as described in Chapter 5.

        The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

        • john says:

          They won't pay the fine.Low income people will go on welfare stop working,Have the working people cover that bill,Obamacare.I see women at the grocery will buy $300.00 worth of grocerys,Five kids,Food card,And then pulls out cash for cigs,lottery tickets,beer,Talking on a cell phone with data package.Its not good.

    2. Sheila says:

      Re; "Entitlements" of which "obama""care" is one, page 4 of Members News displays a graph of Dependence Programs as a % of federal spending. In 1962, it was 28.3, and remained there until 1970, when it started rising to over 50% by 1980. It then declined to slightly under 50%, through Reagan's & Bushes' terms. It rose through the '90's to 68.3% until 2003; went back down to about 65%, and suspiciously began rising again around 2009. Now it's at 70.5%. Coincidence?

    3. Pingback: Senate Rejects Plan to Raise Taxes on Oil Companies

    4. Kahr50 says:

      Listening to the arguments showed me that 1) The attorneys arguing against Ocare were much better prepared and can think on their feet and 2) it made me wonder why they have them at all.

      It was so obvious that most have already made up their minds and that arguments will not sway any of those.

      As to those who we are unsure of, I am positive that they also made up their minds but would only go against that if the arguments were so bad on their side that they wouldl face impeachment in staying their course.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×