According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 22 percent of US voters believe Obama’s health-care law has already been repealed by newly empowered Republican lawmakers. (It hasn’t: The House voted to repeal it, but the Senate did not. Obama would veto that anyway.) Another 26 percent aren’t sure whether the law has been repealed.

A slim majority of respondents – 52 percent – said correctly that the federal health reforms remain the law of the land.

via Health care reform: How big is Obama’s concession? – CSMonitor.com.

The disinformation campaign about this whole thing has been incredibly successful.   The deal referenced in the article makes the whole system more flexible, allowing states more leeway in implementation, as long as they keep the main goal in sight…getting more Americans covered.

This latest move will be, much like the actual law itself, ignored, and we’ll see the following behaviour again…

Recently yet another federal judge found healthcare reformt to be quite Constituional.   This didn’t see nearly the national attention that the dissenting opinion did, but perhaps that is because it happens more often.

Regardless, the Fox New in Print (formerly the “Wall Street Journal”) decided to go with willful ignorance in their reporting of the ruling.

As the Judge said…

“The distinction between activity and inactivity is “of little significance,” Judge Kessler writes. “It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting’ . . . Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin.”

Whoa. In other words, there is no constitutional principle that limits federal coercion.

via Review & Outlook: Regulating ‘Mental Activity’ – WSJ.com.

Ummm, no, you disingenous jackass, in other words ‘not buying health insurance’ is a choice that has economic consequences for the rest of the populace.   If one really wants to whine about this, they can blame Reagan, since he’s the one who signed the law that made it so.

Much of the whining about this law comes from a very pooor understanding of this mandate.   To wit…

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

Yes, it is ridiculous. It’s also true. You will be fined $750, or 2% of your income for not having health insurance, whichever is greater. The punishment begins in 2014.

Maybe we should just make poverty illegal and put a fine on it too.

Most people have no idea that the fines (aka taxes) from *deciding not to buy* health insurance kick only at incomes of about $80K/year (and it’s 2016 now, BTW, Mr. “Best Answer”) and are either “self-employed” or refuse to get their coverage through their work (which has to offer it, or at least give them vouchers to buy it at the state exchange).

The point the judge is making, and the one the WSJ is (predicably) ignoring, is that when one decides not to buy insurnce, but one is still able to get medical care by law, there is an economic impact on everyone else (they have to pay for that free care).   While I would much prefer the simplicity and efficiency of a single-payor system, the whole “fining you for not doing anything” line of reasoning is very weak. 

This is more like a city fining you for not ever mowing your yard.   Yes, it’s a fine.  Yes, it’s for doing *nothing*….when doing *nothing* has a measurable effect on others.