LikeTheDew.com

OK, why do you “believe the results of the last electionwere pretty much a referendum on the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Lousiana purchase”” and other unnamed whatevers? Support your claim with the proper evidence. There is a whole world beyond mere assertion, beyond parroting talking points. Please, explain why the 2010 election was about the sort of deals normally struck to pass major legislation. You’ll want to match electoral returns and public opinion polling data at the U.S. House District level together with relevant intervening variables like demographic differences to create a data set against which you run an ordinary least squares regression. Once you are armed with the resulting coefficients that support your claim we can credit your conclusion.

Regulating insurance companies is left up to the states, most of which already have a bureaucracy in place since insurance, like power utilities, have long been regulated by the states. The intent of the ACA was not to impose a one-size fits all program, but to set performance standards, as well as a bare minimum of essentials (no life-time caps, no exclusions for existing conditions, etc.). If states have mechanisms in place which achieve the desired goals, they have the option of doing their own thing.
To a certain extent, that’s the same pattern as has been followed in the environmental regimen. If a state’s standards are more stringent than the EPA’s, they can follow those, after getting approval. The enforcement mechanism for ACA will likely be more successful, since monetary grants from the federal government can be conditioned on compliance.
Whether or not the states will be able to operate in the public interest, rather than as facilitators of industry objectives is an open question. If it doesn’t work, we can always open up Medicare for all, as a public option.

Well, let’s see if an example will help. Imagine a country where everyone learns to speak English from birth and it’s considered important. In that case, everyone applying for a position, who already speaks English, would be exempt from having to learn it again. Makes sense, right?
The other thing to remember is that our governmental agencies are NOT set up to demand behaviors from the people they are supposed to serve. Which is why, when we want individuals to perform a particular action, such as send their children to school, we provide an incentive — i.e. it’s free. Free education or education at public expense is a bribe to make people do the right thing. Conservatives call that an incentive, I think. But, for some reason, conservatives prefer that incentives be directed towards artificial bodies (companies and corporations) rather than natural persons.
It’s because governmental agencies aren’t organized to coerce individual behavior that the individual mandate to purchase insurance from a private company is questionable as to its constitutionality. There’s no question that governmental entities can collect taxes from people who use money (hermits who don’t use it are exempt and providing “material support” is actually an obligation of citizenship), but ordering them to hand it over to private companies is something else. The private insurance industry, which, like most American enterprise, is always looking for a captive “market” and a guaranteed stream of revenue, likes it. But, there’s also the problem of how the premiums are going to be collected from the reluctant. Experience with privatized garbage collection has shown that it’s much more efficient to just incorporate the cost into the property tax structure instead of relying on separate billing.
Whenever the social benefit is greater than the individual benefit, it makes sense for society to pay the cost.
Of course, if you believe that all men are created evil and only the obedient deserve to survive to old age, then depriving people of access to food, water, education and protection from injury and disease is going to be the default. It all depends on your preconceived notions. Economists call them assumptions and theirs are, for the most part, negative. Which is why theirs is the “dismal science.”

It is presumed that sensible behavior will be adopted voluntarily, at least by adults.

There is obviously a difference between studying English grammar and literature and being instructed in how to speak it fluently. That the effort to inculcate the finer points of reading and writing are often not appreciated is unfortunate.
Public education is free to the parents of children at the time the children are considered ripe for instruction. That the cost of educating the next generation is an obligation all citizens share is only fair since even individuals who choose not to reproduce expect somebody else’s children to provide services and care for them. That most of our exchange and trade of goods and services is mediated by the use of money is a consequence of the fact that it’s a more efficient way to keep track of who owes what to whom and when--certainly better than our feeble memories and our lying eyes.
Recycling and buying bags at the grocery costs less cash, but more time. Which is fine for people who like playing garbage man; even better for people who like the excuse of picking up trash to motivate a healthful stroll. However, hundreds or thousands of citizens picking up after a few slobs is not efficient.
In the interest of honesty, I have to admit that I have no personal interest in the ACA. I haven’t been seen by any medical professional in three decades and don’t plan to start any time soon. If I get sick, I do hope to die quickly. But, it’s not only because I’m no longer in the prime of life that I would not impose that preference on others. A caring/sharing society sees to it that people don’t suffer and that they are not unreasonably deprived of whatever assistance is on offer. Besides, how would medical doctors practice the profession they love, if everyone were like me?