Open issues abound on healthcare. Will the Supreme Court strike it down? If so, who is to blame? Who are the winners and losers? Will healthcare help or hurt the Republican chances?
First please consider Obama delivers warning over healthcare law
Barack Obama has delivered a surprisingly strong warning to the US Supreme Court, saying that it would be guilty of an “unprecedented” case of “judicial activism” if it overturned his signature healthcare law.
On Monday the president said he was “confident” the law would be upheld, questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by legislators.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Mr Obama said during a press conference with Felipe Calderón and Stephen Harper, the visiting leaders of Mexico and Canada respectively.
“For years, what we have heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said.
Support for Obama among women under the age of 50 surged from mid-February, the poll found, putting the president ahead of Romney by 51 percent against 42 percent among all voters. Obama led Romney among the women with 54 percent, compared to Romney's 36 percent.
Republican criticism of birth control played a big role in the party's race for the presidential nomination in recent weeks, with Romney promising to end Planned Parenthood, which provides family planning services.
In mid-February, Obama trailed Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, by two percentage points and fewer than half of women under the age of 50 said they would vote for Obama. In Monday's results, more than six in 10 said they would, the poll showed.
Obama gets attacked by opponents, but the "reform" was written by hospital companies, doctors, and insurers and is an effective tax on the labor of young people and a massive transfer to the aforementioned groups who already receive a grossly disproportionate share of GDP already.
Were the real culprits to be singled out for scrutiny of their motives, it would be doctors, hospitals, and insurers.
Healthcare Key Points
Whether Obamacare passes Supreme Court muster or not, mathematically speaking, healthcare cannot survive in its present form, nor can it survive in Obamacare form for reasons my friend BC explains.
Unless one can make a case for the economy becoming 100% government and HC spending over the next 30-40 years, there is a 0% probability that growth of HC spending can continue, let alone at twice the rate of GDP. A decline of 30% is a mathematical certainty over the next 10+ years and 50% per capita over the same period.
That the growth of government and HC spending has contributed 100% of growth of GDP since '00-'01, no growth and eventual contraction of HC spending will mean effectively no nominal GDP growth hereafter except for whatever net incremental borrowing and spending will occur at the federal level.
Were US government spending to grow at the trend rate, nominal GDP will avg. 1%. Were US government spending to slow to the GDP trend, nominal GDP will be no more than 0.8%.
The implied ~1% nominal GDP growth implies the 10-yr. Treasury yield in the low 1% range, little or no price inflation (eventually falling services prices), decelerating core inflation and periodic core deflation, and no growth of bank lending, employment, investment, spending, and reported earnings for most of the decade.
We will look back on the period '09-'12 as a final central bank-induced asset reflationary cycle that eventually gave way to the forces of demographics, thermodynamics, debt deflation, and valuations.
In Other News: Verizon Releases Statement on FCC’s “1930’s Era Regulations” in Morse Code | Michael Schaus