silliness from the C-J editorialists on health care/insurance, SCOTUS, and ObamaCare

Here's what the C-J editorialists had to say post-SCOTUS/ObamaCare...

For far too long, America’s shame has been the rising number of people who can’t get health care because they can’t pay for it.

The more direct shame is a series of policies that make health care far too expensive-- and that so few "knowledgeable" people know so little about the cause/effect. (See: my paper in CATO for a good discussion of this.) Then again, the C-J advocates making it a lot more expensive to hire unskilled people-- and then doesn't understand how this could limit their employment options.

But in a stunning victory for the Obama administration...

"Stunning"? I'm a little surprised (but not stunned) that they're stunned. Maybe that says something about their worldview?

One terror of a job loss in this economy is the accompanying loss of employer-provided health care for workers and their families...

Right. That's one of many reasons why we shouldn't link health coverage with employment. But we beg for this outcome, when we subsidize the purchase of health insurance through employment!

And young people start out in jobs that don’t provide such benefits and they can’t afford coverage on the open market. Nationwide, 30 million Americans lack health care coverage. In Kentucky, about 650,000 people — one-sixth of its people — have no health insurance.

Because we have all sorts of policies that make coverage so much more expensive-- so expensive that some cannot afford it and others decide it's not worth it. Duh!

Yes, it requires most people to buy health coverage or face a tax penalty. And how exactly is that a problem in a nation where those of us with coverage already are paying the costs of the uninsured through taxes and higher insurance premiums?

Well, for one reason, because the problem cited is tiny compared to the "solution".

And nothing (at least so far) from the C-J on all of the interesting angles (and potentially troubling for them) in the ruling.