Obamacare

[Chris]

Reasons against it.

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins! (http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/25/3-reasons-to-kill-obamacare-before-it-be):

1. It Represents the End of Limited Government.
2. Its Price Tag is Already Ballooning.
3. Obamacare Won't Make Us Healthier.

The 4 Best Legal Arguments Against ObamaCare (http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/24/4-best-legal-arguments-against-obamacare):

1: The Individual Mandate Violates the Original Meaning of the Constitution
2. The Individual Mandate Rests on an Unbounded and Unprincipled Assertion of Federal Power
3. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Justified Under Existing Supreme Court Precedent
4. The Individual Mandate Threatens the Foundations of Contract Law

[roadmaster]

The only problem I have with it is NO one knows what's in it. I am glad insurance companies can't throw up the pre-existing condition clause up now. There was a teacher here that just got canned after they found out she had cancer, it was in the news. If it had been in the older days and she got another job the insurance company wouldn't pay a dime towards this. As an independent I think everyone legal should have protection in this country especially when they worked all their lives, then get sick and no longer work and all of a sudden the bills pile up at the hospital. When my dad got sick he took everything out of his name and put it only in moms to protect this government from coming in and taking everything and they couldn't because he owned nothing. So yes, people have been needing protection for many years and nothing has been done except to throw old widows and kids out on the streets.

[Chris]

That has nice emotional appeal, roadmaster, but what about legal and cost issues?

[MMC]

Well For one Obama lied about the Cost. Then 2 yrs later Admitted they had got the numbers wrong.

[Peter1469]

If a teacher was fired because she had cancer and the school didn't want to take the hit via the health care, she has a valid law suit and should sue them.

Regarding the legal arguments above, I agree, but I suspect that SCOTUS will not agree. First, SCOTUS doesn't care what the original intent of the Constitution was; they care what case law says the Constitution means. There is plenty of case law to find this and almost anything Congress does as "Constitutional." Perhaps SCOTUS will surprise me and expand upon Lopez.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html)

That was the first time in a very long time that SCOTUS told Congress that the Commerce Clause has limits and is not a license for any law Congress's desires.

[Chris]

Afraid you might be right, Peter. As "3. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Justified Under Existing Supreme Court Precedent" linked in OP points out there's precedent in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. But as it also argues "neither of those precedents stretched the Commerce Clause so far as to allow Congress to regulate inactivity. IOW, precedent has expanded government power and reduce positive rights, not yet negative rights.

[MMC]

I believe the SCOTUS will punt on the Mandate issue.....Since one cannot sue about taxes until they have gone into effect. Which Obama's doesn't take affect until 2014. IMO the attorney's usual way to play the game with delays. Which Obama knew before it even went to the SCOTUS. Still the cost is 1.2 trillion more than Obama and his advisors thought. Thats 1.2 trillion Higher than expected.

If they didn't see this.....then they didn't see anything that comes along with it either. Meaning both pros and cons.

[dadakarma]

Obamacare (I hate that it's termed that way. It should be the 'Care that the Insurance Companies Wanted', since the legislation was written by them) is the compromise we get because the public option compromise didn't stand a chance, because single-payer was never put on the table to begin with. So 'Obamacare' is the best first-step towards inevitable single-payer that we get. Single-payer is what we will eventually get because it is the best solution to the problem of for-profit health care, which is uncivilized. Health care shouldn't be 'for profit'. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen whose contribution to the actual care anyone receives is zilch. They post record profits by DENYING care.

[Peter1469]

I believe the SCOTUS will punt on the Mandate issue.....Since one cannot sue about taxes until they have gone into effect. Which Obama's doesn't take affect until 2014. IMO the attorney's usual way to play the game with delays. Which Obama knew before it even went to the SCOTUS. Still the cost is 1.2 trillion more than Obama and his advisors thought. Thats 1.2 trillion Higher than expected.

If they didn't see this.....then they didn't see anything that comes along with it either. Meaning both pros and cons.


I have a hard time seeing the penalty as a tax. A tax would apply to everyone, not just people who didn't get insurance.

[Conley]

Obamacare (I hate that it's termed that way. It should be the 'Care that the Insurance Companies Wanted', since the legislation was written by them) is the compromise we get because the public option compromise didn't stand a chance, because single-payer was never put on the table to begin with. So 'Obamacare' is the best first-step towards inevitable single-payer that we get. Single-payer is what we will eventually get because it is the best solution to the problem of for-profit health care, which is uncivilized. Health care shouldn't be 'for profit'. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen whose contribution to the actual care anyone receives is zilch. They post record profits by DENYING care.

Yes, it is much more convenient for the politicians to call it Obamacare than admit how favorable it is to insurance companies. The thing that really bothers me is when it's called health care reform when it's not. Real health care reform will come when the costs are lowered, not by forcing more people to join and pay excessive amounts for insurance.

I don't think it is the insurance companies that are getting rich but rather the care providers, who charge exorbitant fees for the same procedures and tests that are much cheaper in other countries. As has been pointed out though, those other countries don't have the legal system we do, which allows for mega lawsuits, malpractice, etc.

[Peter1469]

Obamacare (I hate that it's termed that way. It should be the 'Care that the Insurance Companies Wanted', since the legislation was written by them) is the compromise we get because the public option compromise didn't stand a chance, because single-payer was never put on the table to begin with. So 'Obamacare' is the best first-step towards inevitable single-payer that we get. Single-payer is what we will eventually get because it is the best solution to the problem of for-profit health care, which is uncivilized. Health care shouldn't be 'for profit'. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen whose contribution to the actual care anyone receives is zilch. They post record profits by DENYING care.

Good post, but I disagree. I don't think that Obamacare was written by the insurance industry. It is a good theory, because most legislation today is written by industry. But Obamacare was designed by Obama to destroy the health insurance industry. The goal is for health insurance to either raise its prices so high that the People demand a single payer system, or to simply bankrupt the insurance industry. Obama said as much in a Q&A with the public during the run up to the law. A socialist citizen told Obama that the goal should be single payer; Obama agreed and said we will get there. This is the first step.

[Conley]

How is forcing Americans to pay for health insurance going to destroy the health insurance industry? The bill gives them a lot of new customers.

[Conley]

It used to be if you were young and healthy you had the choice of whether or not to buy insurance. Now you will have to pay the insurance company a ridiculous sum or pay the federal government $695 per person up to $2,085 per family.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance

[dadakarma]

Yes, it is much more convenient for the politicians to call it Obamacare than admit how favorable it is to insurance companies. The thing that really bothers me is when it's called health care reform when it's not. Real health care reform will come when the costs are lowered, not by forcing more people to join and pay excessive amounts for insurance.

I don't think it is the insurance companies that are getting rich but rather the care providers, who charge exorbitant fees for the same procedures and tests that are much cheaper in other countries. As has been pointed out though, those other countries don't have the legal system we do, which allows for mega lawsuits, malpractice, etc.

The exorbitant fees are to compensate for the uninsured who aren't paying into the system at all. Thirty percent of the cost of healthcare goes for administrative costs - the differing and myriad bureaucratic procedures and paperwork for EACH health plan. Single-payer would streamline and simplify all of that. We pay more now to leave out 30 million people than it would cost through single-payer to cover everyone.

[Peter1469]

How is forcing Americans to pay for health insurance going to destroy the health insurance industry? The bill gives them a lot of new customers.

First, the bill is going to make insurance much more expensive- that alone could cause people to say we want something else (single payer).

Second, the law does not allow insurance companies to turn people with pre-existing conditions down. Good for those sick people. Bad for insurance. That drives the prices way up for all.

Look at it this way. You have a house with no insurance. It starts on fire. You try to buy fire insurance. I say OK, how much is your house worth. You say $250K. I say, OK, give me $250K and I will insure your house.

If an insurance company is forced to take all people, it is no longer insurance.

[dadakarma]

It used to be if you were young and healthy you had the choice of whether or not to buy insurance. Now you will have to pay the insurance company a ridiculous sum or pay the federal government $695 per person up to $2,085 per family.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance

'Obamacare' is a big wet kiss to the insurance companies. They're stoked. 30 million new customers, PAID.

Don't get me wrong, I want everyone covered. But this isn't the answer. Health 'insurance' is a despicable business out to make money by denying care. We don't need it. Let them reinvent themselves insuring STUFF, not health.

[Peter1469]

It used to be if you were young and healthy you had the choice of whether or not to buy insurance. Now you will have to pay the insurance company a ridiculous sum or pay the federal government $695 per person up to $2,085 per family.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance

I went through college and law school without having to get the mandatory insurance because I had VA coverage as I am a vet. I went to the hospital one time in those 7 years. Paying for insurance would have been a waste of money for me.

[dadakarma]

First, the bill is going to make insurance much more expensive- that alone could cause people to say we want something else (single payer).

Second, the law does not allow insurance companies to turn people with pre-existing conditions down. Good for those sick people. Bad for insurance. That drives the prices way up for all.

Look at it this way. You have a house with no insurance. It starts on fire. You try to buy fire insurance. I say OK, how much is your house worth. You say $250K. I say, OK, give me $250K and I will insure your house.

If an insurance company is forced to take all people, it is no longer insurance.

The only people who don't want single-payer are the ones profiting from the current system - and the ones duped by the ones profiting from the current system.

[Peter1469]

The exorbitant fees are to compensate for the uninsured who aren't paying into the system at all. Thirty percent of the cost of healthcare goes for administrative costs - the differing and myriad bureaucratic procedures and paperwork for EACH health plan. Single-payer would streamline and simplify all of that. We pay more now to leave out 30 million people than it would cost through single-payer to cover everyone.

But a single payer system would have no market forces to control costs and compete via quality. It would be subject to government budget constraints and rationing. Quality would drop, general access would rise, but many expensive and complicated issues would simply be ignored.

Single payer = lowest common denominator. We would all get care; but we would all get substandard care.

[Chris]

Obamacare I agree was at least partially written by insurance companaies or compromised with them in if no other respect than the mandate which will expand their customer base. The blowback to them, and to us, will be if and when government institutes single payer.

Why does single payer need to be yet another government-created monopoly? Why not split it up and privatize? Allow the private sector to create multiple competitive payers that we the consumers as payers select individually and pay for the service. Each private service negotiates with payees on payment. Sort of like managed care.

I must be missing something.

[dadakarma]

Good post, but I disagree. I don't think that Obamacare was written by the insurance industry. It is a good theory, because most legislation today is written by industry. But Obamacare was designed by Obama to destroy the health insurance industry. The goal is for health insurance to either raise its prices so high that the People demand a single payer system, or to simply bankrupt the insurance industry. Obama said as much in a Q&A with the public during the run up to the law. A socialist citizen told Obama that the goal should be single payer; Obama agreed and said we will get there. This is the first step.

No, Peter. It was carefully constructed and designed NOT to destroy the industry. Here is a fact sheet for you to read. I'll find others if you're interested:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

[Peter1469]

The only people who don't want single-payer are the ones profiting from the current system - and the ones duped by the ones profiting from the current system.

Well you are demonstrably wrong. I don't want single payer; I am not profiting from the current system; I don't even like the current system. We need more free market involved in health care, not less.

[dadakarma]

Obamacare I agree was at least partially written by insurance companaies or compromised with them in if no other respect than the mandate which will expand their customer base. The blowback to them, and to us, will be if and when government institutes single payer.

Why does single payer need to be yet another government-created monopoly? Why not split it up and privatize? Allow the private sector to create multiple competitive payers that we the consumers as payers select individually and pay for the service. Each private service negotiates with payees on payment. Sort of like managed care.

I must be missing something.

Check this out. Notice that it is a NON PARTISAN organization:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

(http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer)

[Peter1469]

Obamacare I agree was at least partially written by insurance companaies or compromised with them in if no other respect than the mandate which will expand their customer base. The blowback to them, and to us, will be if and when government institutes single payer.

Why does single payer need to be yet another government-created monopoly? Why not split it up and privatize? Allow the private sector to create multiple competitive payers that we the consumers as payers select individually and pay for the service. Each private service negotiates with payees on payment. Sort of like managed care.

I must be missing something.


Good plan. I would also add that if people (with money) bought catastrophic coverage and paid for routine health care out of pocket, market forces would solve many of our problems.

The idea of a government program to cover those who can't afford insurance makes some sense- it is cheaper to pay for insurance than it is to pay for visits to the ER. But these services should be "Honda" not "Cadillac." Stan Brock's Remote Area Medicine is a good model for giving health care to Americans who can't pay for their own.

[Peter1469]

No, Peter. It was carefully constructed and designed NOT to destroy the industry. Here is a fact sheet for you to read. I'll find others if you're interested:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/


Thank you for the link. I respectfully disagree. Obamacare is the first step to the end of health insurance and the beginning of a single payer system. If Obamacare is not stopped via SCOTUS or legislative action, time will prove me correct. I have been looking on you tube for the specific Obama speech where he told a socialist citizen that very thing. If I find it I will post it.

[Peter1469]

Check this out. Notice that it is a NON PARTISAN organization:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

(http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer)

Thank you for the link. But PNHP is hardly non partisan. They should pick up a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and decide on a better model to provide health care than socialism.

[dadakarma]

Thank you for the link. I respectfully disagree. Obamacare is the first step to the end of health insurance and the beginning of a single payer system. If Obamacare is not stopped via SCOTUS or legislative action, time will prove me correct. I have been looking on you tube for the specific Obama speech where he told a socialist citizen that very thing. If I find it I will post it.

I know the speech you're talking about, but guess what? It was during the campaign, not after he was elected. Once elected, he never said that again. Single-payer hasn't been on the table since Obama's been in office. Dismissing it and its proponents was one of the most disappointing actions he took as Commander in Chief.

[dadakarma]

Thank you for the link. But PNHP is hardly non partisan. They should pick up a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and decide on a better model to provide health care than socialism.

What is it about their plan that bothers you? Is it the cost savings? The efficiency? The fact that everyone will receive quality care even if they're poor? The fact that insurance companies and their billion-dollar lobby will have to close up shop? Please, spell it out.

[dadakarma]

Well you are demonstrably wrong. I don't want single payer; I am not profiting from the current system; I don't even like the current system. We need more free market involved in health care, not less.

I am not "demonstrably wrong". I posted a link documenting exactly how the system is rigged and by whom. You don't like it and cite 'free market'. That's a meme. How would your interpretation of the 'free market' improve on health care in this country? We already have "the best in the world", right? Only problem is that only the rich can afford it. Huge swath goes without as a result. So what good is that? Conscious people now know that access = AFFORDABLE.

[Chris]

Check this out. Notice that it is a NON PARTISAN organization:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

(http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer)

Perhaps not partisan but definitely biased toward govt-run single payer.

Again, what is wrong with the multiple private single payer system I described where each of us would have a single payer but could have different ones, you through single payer A and me and Peter through single payer B, etc?

[dadakarma]

Perhaps not partisan but definitely biased toward govt-run single payer.

Again, what is wrong with the multiple private single payer system I described where each of us would have a single payer but could have different ones, you through single payer A and me and Peter through single payer B, etc?

That's not single-payer. Single-payer means ONE payer: the Government, which is US. OUR money.

[Chris]

Good plan. I would also add that if people (with money) bought catastrophic coverage and paid for routine health care out of pocket, market forces would solve many of our problems.

The idea of a government program to cover those who can't afford insurance makes some sense- it is cheaper to pay for insurance than it is to pay for visits to the ER. But these services should be "Honda" not "Cadillac." Stan Brock's Remote Area Medicine is a good model for giving health care to Americans who can't pay for their own.
I purchased catastrophic insurance for son, it was cheap, and even covered doctor visit and prescriptions to a degree.

I'd be open to ideas for making insurance more affordable. For instance, remove insurance as an employee benefit, pay that cost out to employee as income and let employee purchase. This would also allow people to keep insurance employer to employer and into retirement. If govet wants to lend a hand, do not change taxes on income that goes to healthcare insurance.

[Conley]

To me any discussion of health insurance is putting the cart before the horse...until the cost of health care is controlled we will always have these problems. It is bankrupting states and individuals across the country with no benefit in outcome.

[dadakarma]

To me any discussion of health insurance is putting the cart before the horse...until the cost of health care is controlled we will always have these problems. It is bankrupting states and individuals across the country with no benefit in outcome.

The high cost of CARE is directly attributable to the fact that care must be administered regardless of ability to PAY, which means poor people are going to the ER for their needs. That is absurd and wildly inefficient. It's also astronomically expensive. Fee for services are NEGOTIATED between caregivers and insurance companies. Let We the People negotiate instead, and We the People (government) will cover everyone.

[Conley]

I think that's part of the cost, but not all.

Are private hospitals legally required to provide emergency care to uninsured?

[dadakarma]

I think that's part of the cost, but not all.

Are private hospitals legally required to provide emergency care to uninsured?

Yes.

[Conley]

But there are plenty of private hospitals that have closed their emergency departments to cut costs, right? So in that case, they're not covering uninsured.

[Peter1469]

What is it about their plan that bothers you? Is it the cost savings? The efficiency? The fact that everyone will receive quality care even if they're poor? The fact that insurance companies and their billion-dollar lobby will have to close up shop? Please, spell it out.

It doesn't save costs just because they say it does. A single payer system will either have strict rationing or it will increase costs above current level. Only a free market will control costs and provide quality care at the same time.

Insurance companies don't do much better in saving costs.

[Peter1469]

I am not "demonstrably wrong". I posted a link documenting exactly how the system is rigged and by whom. You don't like it and cite 'free market'. That's a meme. How would your interpretation of the 'free market' improve on health care in this country? We already have "the best in the world", right? Only problem is that only the rich can afford it. Huge swath goes without as a result. So what good is that? Conscious people now know that access = AFFORDABLE.

I apologize, but you said that no person who is not profiting from the current system wants a single payer system. I gave you one example, me, that disproved your claim. What more do you want?

[Peter1469]

That's not single-payer. Single-payer means ONE payer: the Government, which is US. OUR money.

But it adds competition to the mix- that is how you control costs.

[Peter1469]

I purchased catastrophic insurance for son, it was cheap, and even covered doctor visit and prescriptions to a degree.

I'd be open to ideas for making insurance more affordable. For instance, remove insurance as an employee benefit, pay that cost out to employee as income and let employee purchase. This would also allow people to keep insurance employer to employer and into retirement. If govet wants to lend a hand, do not change taxes on income that goes to healthcare insurance.

Linking insurance with employment was a very bad idea. States should create risk pools and individuals are able to purchase within their risk pool. You get the same buying power, or more than you do under an employer plan, and you aren't forced to stay in a job you no longer want just to keep insurance. Plus it would reduce the burden on employers.

[Peter1469]

The high cost of CARE is directly attributable to the fact that care must be administered regardless of ability to PAY, which means poor people are going to the ER for their needs. That is absurd and wildly inefficient. It's also astronomically expensive. Fee for services are NEGOTIATED between caregivers and insurance companies. Let We the People negotiate instead, and We the People (government) will cover everyone.

A single payer system will end up costing more. The government has no incentive whatsoever to control costs, at least with regards to quality. If they want to control a cost, they just deny a service.

[Mister D]

Linking insurance with employment was a very bad idea. States should create risk pools and individuals are able to purchase within their risk pool. You get the same buying power, or more than you do under an employer plan, and you aren't forced to stay in a job you no longer want just to keep insurance. Plus it would reduce the burden on employers.

How long ago was this done? I've never known anything else.

[Peter1469]

But there are plenty of private hospitals that have closed their emergency departments to cut costs, right? So in that case, they're not covering uninsured.

I think it depends on the state. Louisiana has a Charity hospital system. Anyone can use it. If you have money, you pay- at least part of the bill. If you don't the taxpayers pay the bill. My brother lost his job over a year ago and had surgery recently that cost over $50K. He has no assets and will not have to pay a penny.

[Peter1469]

How long ago was this done? I've never known anything else.

It started during WWII when there were strict wage controls. Employers started to include health insurance as part of the compensation package. There was some legislation to allow it. Prior to that it was illegal.

[Conley]

I think it depends on the state. Louisiana has a Charity hospital system. Anyone can use it. If you have money, you pay- at least part of the bill. If you don't the taxpayers pay the bill. My brother lost his job over a year ago and had surgery recently that cost over $50K. He has no assets and will not have to pay a penny.

Interesting.

[Peter1469]

So in New Orleans, private hospitals just send their non-payers to a Charity hospital.

[Mister D]

It started during WWII when there were strict wage controls. Employers started to include health insurance as part of the compensation package. There was some legislation to allow it. Prior to that it was illegal.

It was illegal? Interesting.

[Peter1469]

It was illegal? Interesting.

It may not have been illegal, but it may have been considered income and thus taxed, which meant that nobody wanted health insurance through their employment.

[Mister D]

It may not have been illegal, but it may have been considered income and thus taxed, which meant that nobody wanted health insurance through their employment.

That makes sense. The employer would get hammered too

[wingrider]

Good post, but I disagree. I don't think that Obamacare was written by the insurance industry. It is a good theory, because most legislation today is written by industry. But Obamacare was designed by Obama to destroy the health insurance industry. The goal is for health insurance to either raise its prices so high that the People demand a single payer system, or to simply bankrupt the insurance industry. Obama said as much in a Q&A with the public during the run up to the law. A socialist citizen told Obama that the goal should be single payer; Obama agreed and said we will get there. This is the first step. actually the health care bill was written by the Apollo Alliance

The Apollo Alliance is a project organized by the Institute for America's Future (http://www.answers.com/topic/institute-for-america-s-future) and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (http://www.answers.com/topic/center-on-wisconsin-strategy). The Alliance is a project of the Tides Center (http://www.answers.com/topic/tides-center).[1] (http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-alliance#cite_note-0)[2] (http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-alliance#cite_note-1)
Its goals include establishing energy independence (http://www.answers.com/topic/north-american-energy-independence) for the United States of America (http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states), as well as developing cleaner and more efficient energy (http://www.answers.com/topic/efficient-energy-use) alternatives. Its allies are drawn from businesses, environmental (http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-alliance#) organizations, and over 30 labor unions (http://www.answers.com/topic/trade-union-4).
The Alliance's current Chair is former California State Treasurer (http://www.answers.com/topic/california-state-treasurer) Phil Angelides (http://www.answers.com/topic/phil-angelides), who is currently the Chair of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (http://www.answers.com/topic/financial-crisis-inquiry-commission).
Harry Reid (http://www.answers.com/topic/harry-reid), Senate Majority Leader (2007-present) from Nevada, credited the Apollo Alliance with helping to create the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (http://www.answers.com/topic/obama-stimulus-plan) (also known as the stimulus bill): “This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy that creates jobs and moves us closer to solving our enormous energy and environmental challenges (http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-alliance#),” he said. “We’ve talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”[ (http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-alliance#cite_note-2)


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-alliance#ixzz1qFdqNxB9 thes are all left wing groups along with Acorn, SEIU and a few others like the green energy fools

[Peter1469]

Well apparently they want to destroy the health insurance industry.

[Chris]

That's not single-payer. Single-payer means ONE payer: the Government, which is US. OUR money.

Special pleading is not an argument.

[Chris]

The high cost of CARE is directly attributable to the fact that care must be administered regardless of ability to PAY, which means poor people are going to the ER for their needs. That is absurd and wildly inefficient. It's also astronomically expensive. Fee for services are NEGOTIATED between caregivers and insurance companies. Let We the People negotiate instead, and We the People (government) will cover everyone.

We the People ain't the government. Platitudes aren't arguments either.

[Chris]

I think that's part of the cost, but not all.

Are private hospitals legally required to provide emergency care to uninsured?

Only if they accept Medicare or Medicaid.

[Chris]

I think it depends on the state. Louisiana has a Charity hospital system. Anyone can use it. If you have money, you pay- at least part of the bill. If you don't the taxpayers pay the bill. My brother lost his job over a year ago and had surgery recently that cost over $50K. He has no assets and will not have to pay a penny.

Depends on whether they accept Medicare or Medicaid, and then whether they can collect payment depends on state's rules regarding Medicare/Medicaid.

[Conley]

Only if they accept Medicare or Medicaid.

Right, but I believe almost all do. Private doctors' offices often won't take those patients.

[Chris]

Right, but I believe almost all do. Private doctors' offices often won't take those patients.

Some do, some don't. We have two med clinics nearby, one won't take but the other does. My parents see a doctor who takes. I don't blame them if they don't as government payment doesn't cover costs. Exactly what will happen with government single payer. Canada is experiencing a doctor shortage.

[Mister D]

So is the UK

[Peter1469]

Exactly correct. Once single payer comes on line the government will likely have to offer free medical tuition and lower standards just to attract bodies into medicine.

[Chris]

Looked it up and single-payer as dadakarma suggests is called a monopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony): "In economics, a monopsony is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. It is an example of imperfect competition, similar to a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers. As the only or majority purchaser of a good or service, the "monopsonist" may dictate terms to its suppliers in the same manner that a monopolist controls the market for its buyers." That probably bears further reading, but I have to ask if monopolies are bad for economies how are monopsonies? Yeah, I know, rhetorical.

[Chris]

While we talked about that, the court talked about other things.

Justices Ready to Move to Heart of Health Case (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/26/justices_ready_to_move_to_heart_of_health_case_113 613.html)
...a 19th century law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.

Under the new health care law, taxpayers who don't purchase health insurance would have to report that omission on tax returns for 2014 and would pay a penalty along with federal income tax on returns due by April 2015. Among the issues is whether that penalty is a tax.

...But one lower court that heard the case, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., said the challenge is premature. No justice seemed likely to buy that argument Monday.

Some of the talk:
The justices fired two dozen questions in less than a half hour at Washington attorney Robert Long, who was defending the appeals court ruling.

"What is the parade of horribles?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court decides that penalties are not a tax and the health care case goes forward? Long suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court.

The questions came so quickly at times that the justices interrupted each other. At one point, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor started speaking at the same time. Chief Justice John Roberts, acting as traffic cop, signaled Ginsburg to go first, perhaps in a nod to her seniority. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, stayed out of the fray.
I'd give anything to be there.

If anyone sees an audio recording or transcripts, PLEASE! post.

[Conley]

I'll take a look for it in a few!

[Conley]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Audio-Released-of-Day-One-Health-Care-Oral-Argument/10737429097-4/

:afro:

[Conley]

CSPAN has set up a whole website with video and audio to be added:

http://www.c-span.org/HealthCare/

[Chris]

Great, THANKS!!

Be great if they videotaped and chared that.

[Conley]

Great, THANKS!!

Be great if they videotaped and chared that.

Definitely...it looks like they have plans to add features so who knows.

[Conley]

Here's the transcript as well:

http://www.c-span.org/uploadedFiles/Content/The_Courts/11-398-Monday.pdf

[Mister D]

There are a lot of demonstrators out there.

[wingrider]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why would you have a


requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy
insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.

this made me laugh, Chief Justice Roberts was on his game on this one.


MR. LONG: Well, I would not argue that this
statute is a perfect model of clarity, but I do think
the most reasonable way to read the entire statute is
that it does impose a single obligation to pay a penalty
if you are an applicable individual and you are not


subject to an exemption. And the reason I say that, if
you look at the exemptions from the penalty, the very
first one is you are exempt from the penalty because you
can't afford to purchase insurance. And it just doesn't
seem reasonable to me to interpret the statute as
Congress having said, well, you know, this person is
exempt from paying a penalty because we find they can't
afford to buy insurance, however they still have a legal
obligation to buy insurance. That just doesn't seem
reasonable.

mr long almost blows his case with this statement I thought..

[Chris]

To me that reflects how mangled the law is. Long's doing the best he can with it.

[Mainecoons]

If anyone bothers to look at the fraud and mismanagement of Medicare, how could that same person be so deluded as to think the same government could run single payer efficiently? Only a liberal could be so deluded because at the heart of liberalism is the core insanity of doing the same thing over and over, creating more government programs that fail and waste money, while expecting a different result.

Mexico has very little government involvement in medical care. Private care equal or in some cases better than what you get in the U.S. costs two thirds less. Doctors don't have to pay six figure liability insurance premiums because government courts let trial lawyers use medical care like a giant feedbag. Hospitals and doctors don't have huge administrative staffs shuffling paper for government and insurers. Most medical care is cash and carry. Just as it was in the U.S. when I was a teenager.

Oh, and don't trot out Canada or Europe. All the socialized medicine schemes in Europe are falling apart and awash in red ink and Mexico is full of Canadians who get tired of waiting lists and go there for medical treatment.

[Chris]

Agree, I don't know why but it always seems when a government solution turns into a problem some think a government solution to fix the government problem is going to result in anything other than another government problem.

[Chris]

This is interested, apparently both sides in the case agreed on yesterday's issue and so the court appointed Long to argue a straw man: A guide to the health-care case (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/obamacare-and-supreme-court)
MONDAY: DECIDE NOW OR LATER?

Question: Does the Anti-Injunction Act prevent the court from deciding this case until 2015? The court has granted 90 minutes for arguments on this topic.

Background: The Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 bars court challenges to taxes before those taxes have been levied. The individual mandate will go into effect in 2014. Those who fail to buy insurance will pay their first penalty in 2015.

Mr Obama’s argument: This is the rare instance in which Mr Obama and the states agree, albeit for different reasons. Mr Obama’s lawyers want the court to decide the case now, arguing that Congress did not intend the law’s “penalty” to be treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act.

Challengers’ argument: The case should be decided now. The health law assesses a “penalty”, not a tax. Furthermore, the suit challenges the mandate itself, not the penalty. The Anti-Injunction Act bars a person from suing, but it does not bar a state from doing so.

Court-appointed lawyer’s argument: Because neither the challengers nor Mr Obama want a decision to be delayed, the court appointed a lawyer to argue that the case should wait until 2015. Robert Long, of Covington and Burling, contends that the court should not rule on a constitutional matter until it is compelled to do so, that is, after the tax has been levied.

Analysis: The government’s argument here is among its most confusing. Mr Obama’s lawyers argue that the penalty falls within Congress’s power to tax, but the penalty should not be treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. Nevertheless, only one appellate court, in Virginia, ruled that the suit must wait until 2015.

[Mainecoons]

Agree, I don't know why but it always seems when a government solution turns into a problem some think a government solution to fix the government problem is going to result in anything other than another government problem.

It is exactly why liberalism and statism are mental health issues.

[Chris]

:laugh:


From my guide link above I just caught this bit of duplicitous in the Obama admin argument.

Recall from Monday: "Mr Obama’s argument: This is the rare instance in which Mr Obama and the states agree, albeit for different reasons. Mr Obama’s lawyers want the court to decide the case now, arguing that Congress did not intend the law’s “penalty” to be treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act."

IOW, it's not a tax.

Further down in the guide covers today's topic TUESDAY: THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

"Mr Obama’s argument: ...Furthermore, the mandate’s penalty falls within Congress’s power to tax."

IOW, it is a tax.

:huh:

[Mister D]

Early word seems to be that the mandate is in a precarious position.

[Conley]

That's why I didn't understand Robert's statement that there was no "or else". It seems there's a significant financial "or else" here.

[Chris]

Early word seems to be that the mandate is in a precarious position.

This from a liberal: Toobin: “Train wreck for the Obama administration” today on individual mandate (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/27/toobin-train-wreck-for-the-obama-administration-today-on-individual-mandate/)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n30uutD5OVM&feature=player_embedded#!

[Mister D]

Dayum! :laugh: Bad for the administration.

[Peter1469]

It was heartening to hear the coverage on the oral arguments.

[wingrider]

That's why I didn't understand Robert's statement that there was no "or else". It seems there's a significant financial "or else" here.
I am thinking that the arguements on the fed side is saying there is a penalty but if you can't afford the penalty then it is waived, that is why Roberts said what he did..

it is funny how one day its not a tax and the next day it is a tax, yet in the wording of the bill itself it isn't called a tax.. I also think the states best recourse on this is the federal government is violating the tenants of Contract law.. simply because there is coercion on the part of the feds because under contract law you cannot be forced into a contract it it is against your will, A contract is only legally binding when it is done by 2 willing participants.

[Chris]

"the federal government is violating the tenants of Contract law.. simply because there is coercion on the part of the feds because under contract law you cannot be forced into a contract it it is against your will"

Excellent point, wingrider.

[Mainecoons]

It was heartening to hear the coverage on the oral arguments.

I wouldn't set too much store by that. Judges like to posture in public like everyone else. I've seen this too often only to have a ruling come down that makes it plain they really didn't mean it.

[Mister D]

The opening round was a disaster for the BO Administration by most accounts.

[Chris]

I wouldn't set too much store by that. Judges like to posture in public like everyone else. I've seen this too often only to have a ruling come down that makes it plain they really didn't mean it.

Most can play safe, cons against, libs for, because it'll come down to Kennedy's opinion.

[Chris]

"it is funny how one day its not a tax and the next day it is a tax"

A whole lot of flip flopping going on here.

Supreme irony? Top court poised to throw out Obamacare in echo of case Obama made against Hillary Clinton (http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/supreme-irony-obamacare.html)
... the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.

... back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasises lowering costs."

In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7-1SMV3ok58

[Mister D]

Interesting column.

[Chris]

Hafta wonder if Obama and Kerry aren't related. Where's Kerry's BC? :evil:

[Mister D]

Hafta wonder if Obama and Kerry aren't related. Where's Kerry's BC? :evil:

It got swiftboated! :shocked:

[Peter1469]

I wouldn't set too much store by that. Judges like to posture in public like everyone else. I've seen this too often only to have a ruling come down that makes it plain they really didn't mean it.


I agree with that. I was nervous before hand to hear questions from the conservative justices indicating leaning for the law rather than against.

[BlackAsCoal]

It will all come down to whatever the plutocracy wants done. The Constitution can be interpreted in a 1000 ways depending on who's doing the interpreting and their agenda.

The biggest beneficiary of Obamacare is the health insurance industry .. who wrote it.

Either way, corporations win, the American people lose.

[Conley]

Welcome BlackAsCoal!

Unfortunately I agree with you that the health insurance industry is the big winner here.

[Stoney]

Well, and then there's more power for the politicians, more dependency on government and being able more to say that the Republicans want to take away your rights.

[Conley]

Well, and then there's more power for the politicians, more dependency on government and being able more to say that the Republicans want to take away your rights.

Yes indeed, that too.

[BlackAsCoal]

Welcome BlackAsCoal!

Unfortunately I agree with you that the health insurance industry is the big winner here.

Thank you brother.

The obvious solution has always been Medicare for All. Infrastructure already in place, one of the most popular programs in American history, no mandate required, one can opt out if they choose.

The problem with that all-TOO-obvious solution .. corporations control the American government. Obama abandoned damn near everything he campaigned on for healthcare .. including not having a mandate. He took all the best options off the table even before negotiations began .. slid into the backroom and made deals with Big Pharma, and allowed the healh insurance industry to write the bill, full of loopholes and challenges.

Either way they win.

What Americans want is almost meaningless.

[Stoney]

Thank you brother.

The obvious solution has always been Medicare for All. Infrastructure already in place, one of the most popular programs in American history, no mandate required, one can opt out if they choose.

The problem with that all-TOO-obvious solution .. corporations control the American government. Obama abandoned damn near everything he campaigned on for healthcare .. including not having a mandate. He took all the best options off the table even before negotiations began .. slid into the backroom and made deals with Big Pharma, and allowed the healh insurance industry to write the bill, full of loopholes and challenges.

Either way they win.

What Americans want is almost meaningless.

Medicare is broke.

Our politicians and big business are in a relationship that exchanges political support for competitive support. Both are to be blamed.

[BlackAsCoal]

The problems with Medicare are far easier to fix than trying to create a new system that keeps the health insurance industry still in complete control of our healthcare.

I absolutely agree with you on the unholy relationship with big business and politicians.

[MMC]

The problems with Medicare are far easier to fix than trying to create a new system that keeps the health insurance industry still in complete control of our healthcare.

I absolutely agree with you on the unholy relationship with big business and politicians.

Same thing Ryan has in his plan.....and has been talking about this last 4 years. Thats Ryan out of Wisconsin. (R)

[spunkloaf]

Open your eyes people!! Obama is in league with the Illuminati to put everyone on healthcare to insure that our children grow up as fit as possible. Then when these super fit children get between the ages of 12-18 one male and one female ...from each district will be selected to compete in a battle royale fight to the death. I saw a documentary about it this week. They served popcorn and soda but I had to pay a very high fee for them because of Obamacare. This documentary was soo secretive they even turned the lights off when they showed it. And then an announcement was played to shut off all cell phones so this information remained a secret. WE ARE TRAVELING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE PEOPLE!!! LENNY KRAVITZ IS IN ON IT. And his mom was Jewish so it is a Zionist conspiracy. This is stuff you dont hear on the lamestream media. I heard about this on Fox News so it is true and I dare not question it.

In all fairness, I'm borrowing this from somebody I know personally...

[Mister D]

Open your eyes people!! Obama is in league with the Illuminati to put everyone on healthcare to insure that our children grow up as fit as possible. Then when these super fit children get between the ages of 12-18 one male and one female ...from each district will be selected to compete in a battle royale fight to the death. I saw a documentary about it this week. They served popcorn and soda but I had to pay a very high fee for them because of Obamacare. This documentary was soo secretive they even turned the lights off when they showed it. And then an announcement was played to shut off all cell phones so this information remained a secret. WE ARE TRAVELING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE PEOPLE!!! LENNY KRAVITZ IS IN ON IT. And his mom was Jewish so it is a Zionist conspiracy. This is stuff you dont hear on the lamestream media. I heard about this on Fox News so it is true and I dare not question it.

In all fairness, I'm borrowing this from somebody I know personally...

I hope so. It needs work.

[Peter1469]

Thank you brother.

The obvious solution has always been Medicare for All. Infrastructure already in place, one of the most popular programs in American history, no mandate required, one can opt out if they choose.

The problem with that all-TOO-obvious solution .. corporations control the American government. Obama abandoned damn near everything he campaigned on for healthcare .. including not having a mandate. He took all the best options off the table even before negotiations began .. slid into the backroom and made deals with Big Pharma, and allowed the healh insurance industry to write the bill, full of loopholes and challenges.

Either way they win.

What Americans want is almost meaningless.

I agree with you that corporatism is the main problem. As an aside we need to end the false concept of corporate-person hood.

But Medicare for all would not be able to control costs except through rationing. We need more competition, with true free market entities (not massive corporations) to lower health care costs.

Catastrophic coverage could cover the large unexpected costs while we pay out of pocket for routine medical care.

Medicaid can serve as a safety net but should be run much differently. Hey it is free right. It could run like and SRP in the Army, or modeled off Stan Brock's Remote Area Medical organization. He adapted it for rural America.

Welcome!

[MMC]

Open your eyes people!! Obama is in league with the Illuminati to put everyone on healthcare to insure that our children grow up as fit as possible. Then when these super fit children get between the ages of 12-18 one male and one female ...from each district will be selected to compete in a battle royale fight to the death. I saw a documentary about it this week. They served popcorn and soda but I had to pay a very high fee for them because of Obamacare. This documentary was soo secretive they even turned the lights off when they showed it. And then an announcement was played to shut off all cell phones so this information remained a secret. WE ARE TRAVELING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE PEOPLE!!! LENNY KRAVITZ IS IN ON IT. And his mom was Jewish so it is a Zionist conspiracy. This is stuff you dont hear on the lamestream media. I heard about this on Fox News so it is true and I dare not question it.

In all fairness, I'm borrowing this from somebody I know personally...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kDechJDAJ4&feature=related
Whatever ya do.....Don't take the Blue Pill. :injured:

[spunkloaf]

I hope so. It needs work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22YWYAtcyEA

[Mister D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22YWYAtcyEA

You probably like Adam Sandler, don't you? It just seems like the type of guy middle Americans would find amusing. You know, when you sit around watching television, stuffing your faces with potato chips, and getting fat?

[BlackAsCoal]

I agree with you that corporatism is the main problem. As an aside we need to end the false concept of corporate-person hood.

But Medicare for all would not be able to control costs except through rationing. We need more competition, with true free market entities (not massive corporations) to lower health care costs.

Catastrophic coverage could cover the large unexpected costs while we pay out of pocket for routine medical care.

Medicaid can serve as a safety net but should be run much differently. Hey it is free right. It could run like and SRP in the Army, or modeled off Stan Brock's Remote Area Medical organization. He adapted it for rural America.

Welcome!

Thank you for the welcome.

I appreciate your perspective brother, but health care is currently rationed in this country. Here is a perspective you may appreciate ..

Rationing of Health Care: Now and with Improved Medicare for All.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Rationing

Additionally, those who choose to engage in free (oxymoron) market health care, Medicare functions as supplemental just as it does today.

Out-of-pocket for "routine coverage" could break many families who are struggling.

[Chris]

So, blackascoal, how can central planners do a better job of allocating limited resources to unlimited wants?

[spunkloaf]

You probably like Adam Sandler, don't you? It just seems like the type of guy middle Americans would find amusing. You know, when you sit around watching television, stuffing your faces with potato chips, and getting fat?

Mr. Unpleasant today, aren't you?

[Peter1469]

Thank you for the welcome.

I appreciate your perspective brother, but health care is currently rationed in this country. Here is a perspective you may appreciate ..

Rationing of Health Care: Now and with Improved Medicare for All.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Rationing

Additionally, those who choose to engage in free (oxymoron) market health care, Medicare functions as supplemental just as it does today.

Out-of-pocket for "routine coverage" could break many families who are struggling.

Thank you for the link. I suspect that this is where the US is heading. And understand, I know that the current system is badly damaged. I think that the answer is more free market (not corporatism), not less.

How much time do you have in the Army?

I personally don't think that it will control costs in ways that we will find acceptable. But as long as doctors were allowed to take cash for service from those who could afford it I would at least get the health care that I wanted.

In the plan that I advocate for, those who can't pay out of pocket for routine care would be in the safety net.

[Conley]

Good. We definitely need properly regulated and enforced safety nets in this country.

[Chris]

Indeed, for those who can't not those who won't.

Perhaps those who get free care can do community service in hospitals and even med clinics and doctor's offices.

[Stoney]

I don't see anyway we'll move to capitalism in healthcare, but I see it as our only solution. And I'm not talking about our current big business/big government crony capitalism.

More government control is as bad as more big business control, or worse. At least with big business in control we have some of government looking over their shoulders.

[Peter1469]

agreed

[MMC]

I agree there has to be some sort of regulation.

[Chris]

Regulation that promotes competition in the market would be good.

[Peter1469]

agree

[Chris]

And protects consumers from harm by force or fraud.

[dadakarma]

Obamacare is "too long" for Scalia to read. :rofl:


JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? (Laughter.) And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/03/28/454099/scalia-says-court-cant-be-bothered-to-read-obamacare-you-really-want-us-to-go-through-these-2700-pages/

[MMC]

:laugh: Whats really funny is Obama hasnt even read the whole bill, and its his Bill. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Peter1469]

Obamacare is "too long" for Scalia to read. :rofl:



http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/03/28/454099/scalia-says-court-cant-be-bothered-to-read-obamacare-you-really-want-us-to-go-through-these-2700-pages/

It isn't the job of a Supreme Court justice to read a 2700 page law. It is the job of the justice to read the lower court record and rule on whether the law is Constitutional based on the facts developed in the lower courts.

The reason the government asked SCOUTS to read the entire bill during oral arguments was in an effort to save the bill from being totally tossed out. They already know that the mandate is gone. But Congress would not have removed the severability clause from the law had they thought that the legislation would work without the mandate. It won't. The mandate is the key.

[Mister D]

It isn't the job of a Supreme Court justice to read a 2700 page law. It is the job of the justice to read the lower court record and rule on whether the law is Constitutional based on the facts developed in the lower courts.

The reason the government asked SCOUTS to read the entire bill during oral arguments was in an effort to save the bill from being totally tossed out. They already know that the mandate is gone. But Congress would not have removed the severability clause from the law had they thought that the legislation would work without the mandate. It won't. The mandate is the key.

I wonder if she would find it amusing if her own representatives didn't read the bill but voted on it anyway. Does she know that's highly likely? Not many of our lawmakers knew what was in that bill prior to signing it.