<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SCOTUS ACA Decision: Amazing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/</link>
	<description>Facts, Thoughts, and Commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:00:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared Bernstein</title>
		<link>http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/#comment-216661</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared Bernstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/?p=5605#comment-216661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-put-limits-on-commerce-clause-but-does-it-matter/?hpid=z2]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-put-limits-on-commerce-clause-but-does-it-matter/?hpid=z2" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-put-limits-on-commerce-clause-but-does-it-matter/?hpid=z2</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: davesnyd</title>
		<link>http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/#comment-216620</link>
		<dc:creator>davesnyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/?p=5605#comment-216620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Having said that, they upheld the mandate on the basis of its tax nature but not as part of the commerce clause. Can you comment on how that may be used in the future to restrict Federal prerogatives under the commerce clause?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having said that, they upheld the mandate on the basis of its tax nature but not as part of the commerce clause. Can you comment on how that may be used in the future to restrict Federal prerogatives under the commerce clause?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mitakeet</title>
		<link>http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/#comment-216531</link>
		<dc:creator>mitakeet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/?p=5605#comment-216531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems some groups are upset it wasn&#039;t struck down because they didn&#039;t feel it went far enough.  From http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1:

[Updated at 10:38 a.m. ET] Physicians for a National Health Program responded critically to the Supreme Court’s decision, saying that the ruling did not amount to universal coverage, 26 million people will remain uninsured, it keeps in place high co-pays and gaps in coverage and it will not control costs.

“Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers’ bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs,” the group’s statement said.

It said a “single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system” would remedy these problems, including the issue of cost. Ideally, the group said, such a system would pay “all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.”]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems some groups are upset it wasn&#8217;t struck down because they didn&#8217;t feel it went far enough.  From <a href="http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1" rel="nofollow">http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1</a>:</p>
<p>[Updated at 10:38 a.m. ET] Physicians for a National Health Program responded critically to the Supreme Court’s decision, saying that the ruling did not amount to universal coverage, 26 million people will remain uninsured, it keeps in place high co-pays and gaps in coverage and it will not control costs.</p>
<p>“Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers’ bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs,” the group’s statement said.</p>
<p>It said a “single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system” would remedy these problems, including the issue of cost. Ideally, the group said, such a system would pay “all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marc sobel</title>
		<link>http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/#comment-216521</link>
		<dc:creator>marc sobel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/?p=5605#comment-216521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Roberts just decided not to contest Taney for the Slytherin Prefect]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roberts just decided not to contest Taney for the Slytherin Prefect</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marc sobel</title>
		<link>http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/scotus-aca-decision-amazing/#comment-216512</link>
		<dc:creator>marc sobel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/?p=5605#comment-216512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like Roberts decided not to contest Taney for Slytherin Prefect http://bit.ly/MCPFo2]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like Roberts decided not to contest Taney for Slytherin Prefect <a href="http://bit.ly/MCPFo2" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/MCPFo2</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
