Under the decision, physicians and hospitals continue to move away from the traditional fee-for-service healthcare business model and toward more efficient systems that coordinate care.

There's plenty of evidence, from plenty of countries, in plenty of industries that any fee for service model is much more efficient than any kind of coordinated model.

To wit:

http://www.mises.org/daily/3737/Why-ObamaCare-Will-Fail-A-Reading-List

Who wrote the above article? A Democrat?

Seems like it. I was trying to stay awake reading the article, but it bored me to death, typical liberal gobblygoob!

"Plenty of evidence"

Your link: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Of the "Austrian School."

Freidman himself described Good ol' Ludwig as "inflexible in his thinking.

So, yeah, there is "plenty of evidence" all right. From an organizatoin dedicated to a foreign-orignating free-market fundamentalism so extreme as to be dismissed by the Chicago School.

Why does it have to be so complicated?

Employees pay a monthly contribution based on their salary. Employers add a contribution for each employee. And you pay a small portion of the fees when you go to a hospital or get medicine.

What's to discuss?

I didn't read any 'gobblygoob' here. It was a pretty concise, lucid article. If I want semi-literate 'gobblygoob', I'll read what the teabaggers have to 'say' on this issue.

I didn't read any 'gobblygoob' here. It was a pretty concise, lucid article. If I want semi-literate 'gobblygoob', I'll read what the teabaggers have to 'say' on this issue.

Then you probably didn't read it correctly. Concise and lucid? More like "contrived and looney." That would sum up what the liberal blogs are ranting about.

Your link: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.

yep. a one room institute on the auburn campus when it was founded in 1981.

today they have an international presence, members placed in major universities and in the US alone the attention and support of hundreds of thousands of ron paul supporters.

Of the "Austrian School."

originally a term of derision - - if you sided with the nazis at the time. the nazis recognized mises' 1922 proof that socialism could not work was fatal to their totalitarian aims. his vienna apartment was raided, his works confiscated or destroyed and they pursued him across europe .

Freidman himself described Good ol' Ludwig as "inflexible in his thinking

they had more in common than they did differences. both were founders of the mont pelerin society. his critique of mises' temperament was basically an aside - - if you have ever actually listened to the speech wherein he makes it.

So, yeah, there is "plenty of evidence" all right. From an organizatoin dedicated to a foreign-orignating free-market fundamentalism so extreme as to be dismissed by the Chicago School.

foreign-originating? like the degenerates of the frankfurt school, so influential in obama's ideology ? ? ?

mises and hayek chose to make America their home. "liberals" despise austrians like mises hayek and joseph schumpeter in part because they understand he was right when he spoke about how they have corrupted the word and cannot reconcile the essentially bad faith they act in.

"But around 1900 the term liberal underwent a change. People who supported big government and wanted to limit and control the free market started calling themselves liberals. The economist Joseph Schumpeter noted, "As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." Thus we now refer to the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, and limited government--the philosophy of Locke, Smith, and Jefferson--as classical liberalism." ( david boaz)

'dismissed' is a ridiculous assessment . both schools favor private enterprise, low taxes, minimal govt, free markets and sound money.

the honorable ron paul speaks for millions of true Americans:

" I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a "mandate." The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute."

state broken people, in 2006, Romney said:

The key factor that some of my libertarian friends forget is that today, everybody who doesn’t have insurance is getting free coverage from the government. And the question is, do we want people to pay what they can afford, or do we want people to ride free on everyone else. And when that is recognized as the choice, most conservatives come my way.

Why do Republicans love free riders? Why don't Republicans want all people to carry their own weight? Do they support continuing allowing people to get "free coverage from the government", or do they want to require people to take responsibility for their existence - from their own pockets, if possible, or with help, if not?

Ron Paul is a tool. He will abandon whatever "convictions" he might have cobbled together if it leads to an increase in his influence - and the quote above is just one example. To extend his logic, those who truly believe in a peaceful world would be exempt from paying taxes which support the Pentagon and the panoply of intelligence services. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Pentagon spending without facing a jail term.

SBP, well said! Too bad "liberal" folk actually DO NOT HAVE A CLUE.

@Lagoon, your Romney quote is actually funny! But what you fail to grasp is that libertarians are no friends of Romney(his lame attempt at befriending libertarians). Again, it's Oaf-Dem or Oaf-NeoCon. Your comment about RP illustrates the lack of actual knowledge of the man and his principles. Let's see, the SCOTUS as lame as the more recent appointees are, revealed that Obamacare is a TAX, and NOT constitutional under the Commerce Clause(Hogwash as well). So, the entire debacle boils down to a TAX that the majority reject. Obamacare may have survived the day, but will NOT survive the year. The Mises article is a reality-check. As usual, the Kool-Aid Kids can not(or will not) grasp logic, fools as they are.

Herve Nmn L'Eisa -yes, the quote is hilarious, particularly given his present stance. He'd be his own best VP if he didn't disagree with his fundamental positions so vergently.

In reality, though, the tax would be paid by what is estimated to be less than 2% of the population; the rest would do what is right for themselves and the country and enroll in health insurance. Also, since the law was passed by Congress, your assertion that it was rejected by the majority is invalid under the system of a representative government. Numerous studies have shown that citizens are confused by the overall bill and therefore opposed but support each individual component by a wide margin. The Republican, in the unlikely case they come to power, would have to strip each of these away to do away with Obamacare; good luck with that. It is an intricate system that collapses when any piece is pulled away.

Oh - and Mises - please. You may as well study astrology or the works of Nostradamus.

Laguns, I have to ask, do you actually believe what you wrote about extending the pentagon's panoply? REALLY??

Mr Obama clearly claimed ACA was NOT a tax, but the SCOTUS determined it was indeed a TAX. So does that mean the progenitor of this debacle was disingenuous? Let's just say that a leopard can't change its spots. And neither can Romney nor Obama (elite members of the beltway fibbers club).

Regarding the Pentagon, within the parameters of this discussion, yes: if one may be allowed to remain a free rider on healthcare, then why not on defense? Really, the chance in my lifetime that I'll face a Napoleon or Hitler is far less than that I'll face gallstones or an aneurysm, so if I've a chance to avoid paying for something, which would be the logical choice?

It was SCOTUS that defined it as a tax, not the Obama administration. If the ACA were taken as a mandate, non-compliance would be interpreted as a penalty; SCOTUS denied the right to mandate healthcare but allowed the ability to tax those who do not comply (or, to look at it a different way, give a tax break to those who do). It is all semantics: broccoli may be dinner or desert depending on how it is served. Again, those who currently have health insurance will be unaffected; those who do not but sign up will be unaffected; only the very small percentage of those who refuse to carry coverage will be subject to the tax. Think about it as "the other 1%."

Regarding the Austrian School: to a predetermined political position add some very limited cases with extreme ceteris paribus conditions and maybe a unicorn and some pixi dust (the former would be devoured immediately, so it is not recommended), and voila! - An economic system that those with predetermined political positions and a taste for unicorn meat would appreciate!