PDA

View Full Version : Legal Conservative 6th Circuit Appeals Court upholds Obamacare mandate


dirk digler
06-29-2011, 04:57 PM
I know this is headed to the Supreme Court but it is interesting that a Bush appointee upheld the Obamacare individual mandate.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld the health reform law’s controversial requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance, marking a significant win for President Barack Obama in the legal battles over his signature legislation.

The ruling (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf) by a three-judge panel — 2-1 in favor of the mandate — is the first from an appeals court on the constitutionality of the law.

The panel included two Republican nominees, who ended up on opposite ends of the opinion. Jeffrey S. Sutton, a George W. Bush nominee and a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, is the first Republican-nominated judge to rule in favor of upholding the mandate.

“We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause,” Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., who was nominated by Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority.

The 6th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling in a suit brought by the conservative Thomas More Law Center, which argued on behalf of itself and two individuals that Congress has no legal right to impose the mandate.

vailpass
06-29-2011, 04:59 PM
Bring it to the SCOTUS and let them gut it. Now.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 05:03 PM
So what else will be mandated under the "commerce clause"?

They won't even allow insurance companies to compete across state lines but yet we have this because of the commerce clause??? Seems rather contradictory.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 05:06 PM
Bring it to the SCOTUS and let them gut it. Now.

It is going to be a close vote.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 05:07 PM
It is going to be a close vote.

Mu gut tells me it will stand. It shouldn't. It is not Constitutional, imo, and sets a dangerous precedent.

Jenson71
06-29-2011, 05:07 PM
So what else will be mandated under the "commerce clause"?

They won't even allow insurance companies to compete across state lines but yet we have this because of the commerce clause??? Seems rather contradictory.

The commerce clause deals with legislative powers of action, and nothing prevents it from being used in a way that seems contradictory when viewed in light of some economic activity.

Jenson71
06-29-2011, 05:08 PM
I think it would be upheld as Constitutional under the current SCOTUS.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 05:09 PM
I think it would stand as Constitutional under the current SCOTUS.

Sadly you might be correct.

Ugly Duck
06-29-2011, 05:11 PM
it is interesting that a Bush appointee upheld the Obamacare individual mandate.


Shouldn't surprise anyone cuz its a Repuli idea. Republi John Chafee of Rhode Island along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California are the ones that introduced legislation that featured an individual mandate back in the Clinton era. Four of the Republi co-sponsors — Hatch, Grassley, Bennett and Bond (along with all other Republis) are suddenly now against their own proposal cuz Obama is for it.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 05:11 PM
Mu gut tells me it will stand. It shouldn't. It is not Constitutional, imo, and sets a dangerous precedent.

I don't know it is hard to read. They just need to fast track it to the Supreme Court and get it over with either way.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 05:13 PM
I don't know it is hard to read. They just need to fast track it to the Supreme Court and get it over with either way.

This is true. The uncertainty hanging over everyone on this is crippling. What will be next is how we have to pay more or more for people who "can't afford" the mandate.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 05:18 PM
This is true. The uncertainty hanging over everyone on this is crippling. What will be next is how we have to pay more or more for people who "can't afford" the mandate.

Yep especially for businesses. I think it maybe one of the reasons why they are holding off on hiring new people.

|Zach|
06-29-2011, 05:20 PM
When all of this first started I welcomed the challenges that would be put to this plan through the courts. It will be interesting to see what comes from the Supreme court on this.

|Zach|
06-29-2011, 05:23 PM
From the ruling...

The district court held that the minimum coverage provision falls within Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause for two principal reasons: (1) the provision regulates economic decisions regarding how to pay for health care that have substantial effects on the interstate health care market; and (2) the provision is essential to the Act’s larger regulation of the interstate market for health insurance. Because the district court found the provision to be authorized by the Commerce Clause, it declined to address whether it was a permissible tax under the General Welfare Clause. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and they appeal.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 05:46 PM
From the ruling...

I have to agree with them.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 06:07 PM
To be clear, this was a 3-judge panel that voted 2-1. If they decide to appeal it to the entire 6th circuit, it may go the other way. (I'd imagine they'd rather appeal it to the supreme court now, if they can)

Still interesting that a Bush appointee signed off.

They won't even allow insurance companies to compete across state lines but yet we have this because of the commerce clause???

A lot of people seem to not understand how insurance is sold in our country, as far as this whole "state lines" issue goes. Its a silly phantom issue.

Where you live matters. In almost every type of insurance the rate varies by design, not just by state, but often by zip code. The insurance company does not WANT you to buy a policy they sell in rural Utah, at those rural Utah rates, if you live in, say, New York City. Whether its liability, health, life, car, home, whatever people who live in different states are more/less exposed to liability, more/less healthy or have more/less access to superior hospitals, live longer/shorter, and have more/less car and home losses.

If an insurance company does not do business in a particular state, its not because they cant, its because they don't want to, and you cant make them. It isn't hard to file with the appropriate government officials of a new state you want to start doing business in.

orange
06-29-2011, 06:13 PM
A lot of people seem to not understand how insurance is sold in our country, as far as this whole "state lines" issue goes. Its a silly phantom issue.

That's because it's not the real issue. "Across state lines" is just code for "reduce state regulations to the lowest common denominator." Of course, a states-rights right-winger can't say that.

donkhater
06-29-2011, 06:15 PM
This board is so effing blind it's maddening. First, most think that Bush was a conservative. Second, they think Obama's policies are actually different. Someday, maybe, people will wise up.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 06:22 PM
"Across state lines" is just code for "reduce state regulations to the lowest common denominator."

On that note, a lot of insurance companies (including mine!) have long asked for an optional federal insurance regulator and charter (allowing them to bypass state regulators and get national approval for policies and rates), but obviously they have their own best interests in mind. Every time it comes up, several states start to scream and its quickly shut down.

A federal regulator would probably be stricter than some of the easier laid back state regulators like in Utah and Wyoming, but the feds would also probably be less of a pain in the ass than Florida, California, New York, etc, (where the insurance commissioner is usually a politician wanting to get his name in the news as the guy who stood up to the evil insurance company so he can run for governor) and that is where the population is.

That particular debate is not about making insurance more available, if a particular small regional midwest insurance company doesn't want to sell in Florida or wherever, they simply wont. Its all about making it easier to get a rate increase approved in some of the tougher-regulated states.

mlyonsd
06-29-2011, 06:38 PM
I don't know it is hard to read. They just need to fast track it to the Supreme Court and get it over with either way.Yup.

ClevelandBronco
06-29-2011, 06:49 PM
I should have known better than to allow this to surprise me. The ill that I wish against this nation is increasing daily.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 07:08 PM
Yep especially for businesses. I think it maybe one of the reasons why they are holding off on hiring new people.

It is a huge reason they are holding off. They don't know what an employee is going to cost. Would you hire anyone with that cloud hanging over you?

Basically what a lot of companies, including the Firm I work for, are gearing up to do is to pay people a certain amount of money, $1500 or so and then tell people you're on your own for insurance. Well, except those getting waivers of course.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 07:10 PM
I have to agree with them.

I don't. What is next? To use Obama's own words, are we going to force people to buy a house to combat homelessness?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 07:42 PM
This is a pretty difficult unpredictable case, that probably only loosely falls along left/right legal lines. Talk radio and raving politicians aside, this isn't a case where they would have to be insane to uphold the law. I don't know that all 4 on the left (well, except Breyer, he'd remove all limits on the commerce clause) would vote yes, I don't know that all 4 on the right would vote no, and Kennedy is anyone's guess. Both sides have excellent arguments, and there are not closely-related cases you can rely on to come up with a "correct" ruling.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 07:46 PM
This is a pretty difficult unpredictable case, that probably only loosely falls along left/right legal lines. Talk radio and raving politicians aside, this isn't a case where they would have to be insane to uphold the law. I don't know that all 4 on the left (well, except Breyer, he'd remove all limits on the commerce clause) would vote yes, I don't know that all 4 on the right would vote no, and Kennedy is anyone's guess. Both sides have excellent arguments, and there are not closely-related cases you can rely on to come up with a "correct" ruling.

I think we are setting a terrible precedent if this stands. Do we get told next we HAVE to buy cars from American car makers because we have to bail them out otherwise? Just like we HAVE to buy health insurance because we have to bail out those without insurance otherwsie?

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 07:52 PM
I don't. What is next? To use Obama's own words, are we going to force people to buy a house to combat homelessness?

Not really a valid comparison. People being homeless doesn't effect the entire economy like people who refuse\can't get health insurance and get sick and the government having to pay out billions in dollars to cover them.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 07:54 PM
Not really a valid comparison. People being homeless doesn't effect the entire economy like people who refuse\can't get health insurance and get sick and the government having to pay out billions in dollars to cover them.

I disagree. Secondly as I said what about buyin cars? Did GM and Chrysler not cost us billions of $'s? Should I not have been allowed to buy a Nissan? Should I have been mandated to buy GM?

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 08:04 PM
I disagree. Secondly as I said what about buyin cars? Did GM and Chrysler not cost us billions of $'s? Should I not have been allowed to buy a Nissan? Should I have been mandated to buy GM?

I don't why you would disagree. It is just like car insurance, people that are uninsured who get into accidents that effects everybody's rates just like the uninsured who get sick.

To answer your questions yes it did cost us billions but they did pay most of it back and no.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 08:06 PM
I think we are setting a terrible precedent if this stands. Do we get told next we HAVE to buy cars from American car makers because we have to bail them out otherwise? Just like we HAVE to buy health insurance because we have to bail out those without insurance otherwsie?

The problem is that the health care market is incredibly unique, and due to that uniqueness, the argument is that not buying insurance is not really inactivity in the health care market. This whole slippery-slope "next they will mandate you buy homes/vegetables/cars/etc" argument doesn't really fly.

The argument on the other side here is that not choosing to buy health insurance is not really non-participation in the health care market. Insurance itself is not a tangible product, it is just one of many choices available to you for making payment arrangements.

People who don't have a million dollars and choose to not be insured when they could have easily bought insurance will be cared for no matter what, and usually wont be forced to pay anything back other than whatever pathetic assets they have. People who could but choose not to buy insurance are making a choice, in their health care payment arrangements, to be useless freeloaders passing on the cost to everyone else.

It is not inevitable that almost everyone will be forced into buying a home, vegetables, or cars like it is inevitable that almost everyone will buy health care. It may be uncomfortable to sleep under a bridge, but if you want to do that, its not going to cost the rest of us much. Same if you choose to eat meat or choose to ride a bus, and to the extent their choice not to buy these things impacts the rest of us, its not much.

Collectively, uninsured people cost us a hell of a lot of money. Being uninsured when you could buy insurance is a choice to self-insure and then freeload on the taxpayers. It is not inactivity in the health care market, and it is hard to imagine anything else this decision could apply to if Obamacare wins.

All of that aside, even if it were inactivity, there's really nothing in the constitution that says the government can or cant fine someone for not buying something, especially when not buying that thing is a selfish parasitic choice to suck money off the back of the taxpayers.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:21 PM
The problem is that the health care market is incredibly unique, and due to that uniqueness, the argument is that not buying insurance is not really inactivity in the health care market. This whole slippery-slope "next they will mandate you buy homes/vegetables/cars/etc" argument doesn't really fly.

The argument on the other side here is that not choosing to buy health insurance is not really non-participation in the health care market. Insurance itself is not a tangible product, it is just one of many choices available to you for making payment arrangements.

People who don't have a million dollars and choose to not be insured when they could have easily bought insurance will be cared for no matter what, and usually wont be forced to pay anything back other than whatever pathetic assets they have. People who could but choose not to buy insurance are making a choice, in their health care payment arrangements, to be useless freeloaders passing on the cost to everyone else.

It is not inevitable that almost everyone will be forced into buying a home, vegetables, or cars like it is inevitable that almost everyone will buy health care. It may be uncomfortable to sleep under a bridge, but if you want to do that, its not going to cost the rest of us much. Same if you choose to eat meat or choose to ride a bus, and to the extent their choice not to buy these things impacts the rest of us, its not much.

Collectively, uninsured people cost us a hell of a lot of money. Being uninsured when you could buy insurance is a choice to self-insure and then freeload on the taxpayers. It is not inactivity in the health care market, and it is hard to imagine anything else this decision could apply to if Obamacare wins.

All of that aside, even if it were inactivity, there's really nothing in the constitution that says the government can or cant fine someone for not buying something, especially when not buying that thing is a selfish parasitic choice to suck money off the back of the taxpayers.

100% disagree. We could easily mandate that you eat only healthy foods thereby putting yourself in better health thereby lowering health issues thereby reducing the costs of health care.

It's a slippery fucking slope. People who are making excuses for this have no idea what they are getting us into. Nevermind the fact you are putting your health care and control of it into the hands of the fucked up government. I know, I know, we can still have our doctors and all that bs.

Just be around when the day comes and you realize just wtf we did if this stands so I can say I told you so.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:24 PM
I don't why you would disagree. It is just like car insurance, people that are uninsured who get into accidents that effects everybody's rates just like the uninsured who get sick.

To answer your questions yes it did cost us billions but they did pay most of it back and no.

Paid most of it back??? HA! They owe us 10's of billions of $'s still. Plus the bond holders got fucked in the process and the company was handed over to the Unions.

And you want the morons who worked that piece of crap in charge of your health care? Seriously? I don't know anyone, legal or otherwise who cannot walk into a hospital and get care. Oh, yes, they may have to pay for it. But the argument is they can't afford it, right? So WTF makes you think they can afford health insurance? Don't you see? It starts with this and next thing you know you are going to have the have's paying the insurance bull for the have not's anyway. And only now with a ton of fucked up federal regulations.

I know, I know, if you don't buy insurance you will pay a fine!!! Right. Just like we are going to make illegals pay their back-taxes, etc.

Some of you act like you have never seen our Fed Gov in action.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 08:25 PM
It is just like car insurance, people that are uninsured who get into accidents that effects everybody's rates just like the uninsured who get sick.

Its actually stronger than car insurance, because many safe drivers never get into an at-fault accident, and the fine/punishment for driving uninsured is often a hell of a lot higher than this health care fine.

On car insurance, many people argue "well that doesn't count, you don't have to buy a car, you are making me buy health insurance just for breathing." I'd respond by saying that the people who don't drive do not count. If you do not drive, there's no good reason to have car insurance, and not having insurance wont cost anyone else any money. For everyone who wants to drive, we don't want to hear any bullcrap about them not wanting to buy insurance, we don't trust anyone to have any money if they screw up, so they have to go buy insurance.

The only difference with health insurance is the pool of people is larger (as in, everybody). Simply by breathing, you will almost inevitably use health care. Even if you are healthy as a horse, weigh 150 all your life, eat tofu, and die when you are 95, you are likely going to start going to the hospital and racking up the bills at the end, and you could suffer an expensive injury at any time.

So yes, by breathing, if you have money you arguably could be compelled to buy health insurance, just like we don't want to tolerate flake parasites who want to drive uninsured with no plan to pay anyone back for hitting them.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:27 PM
FTR, I am not saying we don't need health care reform. What I am saying is this piece of shit bill, including the mandate is just that, a piece of shit. It does nothing but put us more under Uncle Sam's thumb. In 20 years we will see taxes going up because health care cost a shitload more than they thought it would and the poor people can't afford it and the illegals need to be covered, etc., etc.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:35 PM
Its actually stronger than car insurance, because many safe drivers never get into an at-fault accident, and the fine/punishment for driving uninsured is often a hell of a lot higher than this health care fine.

On car insurance, many people argue "well that doesn't count, you don't have to buy a car, you are making me buy health insurance just for breathing." I'd respond by saying that the people who don't drive do not count. If you do not drive, there's no good reason to have car insurance, and not having insurance wont cost anyone else any money. For everyone who wants to drive, we don't want to hear any bullcrap about them not wanting to buy insurance, we don't trust anyone to have any money if they screw up, so they have to go buy insurance.

The only difference with health insurance is the pool of people is larger (as in, everybody). Simply by breathing, you will almost inevitably use health care. Even if you are healthy as a horse, weigh 150 all your life, eat tofu, and die when you are 95, you are likely going to start going to the hospital and racking up the bills at the end, and you could suffer an expensive injury at any time.

So yes, by breathing, if you have money you arguably could be compelled to buy health insurance, just like we don't want to tolerate flake parasites who want to drive uninsured with no plan to pay anyone back for hitting them.


Horseshit! This a pure fucking power grab. If they wanted to lower health care costs then:

A) we would se serious attempts to rid the Fed Gov of waste and fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

B) We would not have passed a bill that raises taxes on medical device makers

C) We would not have passed a bill that raises taxes on prescription drugs

D) We would not have passed a bill that penalizes health savings accounts


All this bill is going to do is raise the costs of employeeing people, flood the doctors office's and overload doctors with a shitload of regulation that will ultimately shrink the already shrinking pool of medical professionals.


Health Care is NOT a Right. If it should be then it needs to be made law and then the Fed Gov needs to provide it. While I am against that it is the only LEGAL way, imo, that this can ever fly. Not this dictating BS to the private sector we are getting.


We are setting criminals free as we speak beacuse of over-crowsed prisons. WTF do you think is really going to be done to someone who doesn't buy health insurance? Sersiously? The tax man gonna come for him? Slap him with a fine that he ain't ever gonna pay anyway?

FD
06-29-2011, 08:35 PM
This is a pretty difficult unpredictable case, that probably only loosely falls along left/right legal lines. Talk radio and raving politicians aside, this isn't a case where they would have to be insane to uphold the law. I don't know that all 4 on the left (well, except Breyer, he'd remove all limits on the commerce clause) would vote yes, I don't know that all 4 on the right would vote no, and Kennedy is anyone's guess. Both sides have excellent arguments, and there are not closely-related cases you can rely on to come up with a "correct" ruling.

I think there is no way that Scalia can vote against the law after his decision in Gonzalez v Raich. Not if he hopes to retain any credibility, that is. I think his concurrence in Raich was horrible and will haunt him the rest of his career.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 08:36 PM
100% disagree. We could easily mandate that you eat only healthy foods thereby putting yourself in better health thereby lowering health issues thereby reducing the costs of health care.

I don't agree. When you talk about insurance, we're talking about making payment arrangements for health care. That is it, not a tangible product. If we move to what will basically be massive group health plans, we wont have the freeloaders feeding off the insured.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 08:41 PM
Paid most of it back??? HA! They owe us 10's of billions of $'s still. Plus the bond holders got fucked in the process and the company was handed over to the Unions.

And you want the morons who worked that piece of crap in charge of your health care? Seriously? I don't know anyone, legal or otherwise who cannot walk into a hospital and get care. Oh, yes, they may have to pay for it. But the argument is they can't afford it, right? So WTF makes you think they can afford health insurance? Don't you see? It starts with this and next thing you know you are going to have the have's paying the insurance bull for the have not's anyway. And only now with a ton of fucked up federal regulations.

I know, I know, if you don't buy insurance you will pay a fine!!! Right. Just like we are going to make illegals pay their back-taxes, etc.

Some of you act like you have never seen our Fed Gov in action.

The have's are already paying the have not's medical bills which I would guess the majority of it comes from them going to the ER where the cost is what 10x times higher?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 08:41 PM
the poor people can't afford it and the illegals need to be covered, etc., etc.

Those people are already going to the emergency room. We may have a mild increase in doctor visits, but a lot of those people who are either off the grid or own nothing have no problem going to the ER for a sniffle then laugh at the bill that they will never pay when it comes.

Most of that cost, we're already paying indirectly. This reform is going after the leeches who could have afforded to buy insurance, but decided to let the rest of us pay if they ever need the doctor.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:42 PM
I don't agree. When you talk about insurance, we're talking about making payment arrangements for health care. That is it, not a tangible product. If we move to what will basically be massive group health plans, we wont have the freeloaders feeding off the insured.

OMG, hello??? Hello???

We won't have freeloaders feeding off the insured? How so? What are you thinking is going to be done to someone who doesn't buy insurance? I'll tell you....NOT SHIT! And guess what, you are going to get the bill for them.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:44 PM
The have's are already paying the have not's medical bills which I would guess the majority of it comes from them going to the ER where the cost is what 10x times higher?

And I can tell you from first hand experience a lot of that comes from people such as illegals going to the ER because they have a fucking cold. I have seen it. First hand.

The have's will continue to pay for the have not's and mark my words, they will be paying more than they are now under this plan.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 08:47 PM
Health Care is NOT a Right.

(most of the rest of the post was some weird non-sequiter)

Health care sure as hell is a right. Should it be? Who knows, but it is not legal for hospitals to turn away someone who has some life-threatening illness or injury. So, effectively it is a right.

We basically have universal health care, but we only force the people who have money to pay for everyone else. (If you have money, you'll pay one way or another, so they buy insurance just to protect their stuff) A lot of people in the middle class figure they can just go bankrupt if they have to, and some of them dont buy insurance even if they could.

If everyone is going to have access to emergency care, then I'd rather not be the sucker paying for the guy who never saves money and whose plan for paying for health care is bankruptcy and/or just being a flake.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:51 PM
Here is the scenario some of you are pretending isn't going to happen..

Johnny looses his job because his employer now HAS to provide a certail level of insurance so it costs him more and he has to cut back on people....

Johnny is not out of work and has no money to buy insurance....let's hope Johnny stays healthy...

Johnny found a job! Only the employer doesn't provide insurance and instead just gives him a little money to help him get his own.

Johnny says even with that little money he can't afford it so he doesn't buy insurance...let's hope Johnny stays healty

Uh oh, Johnny is sick, has to go to the doctor buy has no insurance.....let's hope you don't mind a little extra coming out of your pocket to pay for Johnny's office visit

Because of Johnny and others like him Congress has determined that despite the mandate only certain people can still afford health insurance so they are going to raise taxes so the Johnny's of the world don't have to buy it, you do!


We are talking about making the same people we give tax refunds to every year suddenly buying insurance because the gub'ment said they have too. Then they will cry they can't afford it so the guv'ment will give them a tax break for their insurance then scream the rich don't pay enough in taxes.


How many times do you have to play the broken record before you figure out that's what it is?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 08:52 PM
OMG, hello??? Hello???

We won't have freeloaders feeding off the insured? How so? What are you thinking is going to be done to someone who doesn't buy insurance? I'll tell you....NOT SHIT! And guess what, you are going to get the bill for them.

Well, other than that whole fine that the right is agonizing over, anyway.

Really, that fine is the crux of the matter. If you think the fine is "not shit", then you don't have a legal reason to bitch about the mandate.

Maybe your health care plan would be different (I'd personally require only cheaper catastrophic high-deductible coverage which would mostly solve the freeloader problem while not encouraging people to use the coverage often until they need to), but any significant reform requires people who currently could pay in but choose not to, to pay in. Whether its a mandate to buy insurance, or a tax increase to fund national health care, or whatever, we should under no circumstance tolerate people choosing to go uninsured when they could afford insurance.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:55 PM
(most of the rest of the post was some weird non-sequiter)

Health care sure as hell is a right. Should it be? Who knows, but it is not legal for hospitals to turn away someone who has some life-threatening illness or injury. So, effectively it is a right.

We basically have universal health care, but we only force the people who have money to pay for everyone else. (If you have money, you'll pay one way or another, so they buy insurance just to protect their stuff) A lot of people in the middle class figure they can just go bankrupt if they have to, and some of them dont buy insurance even if they could.

If everyone is going to have access to emergency care, then I'd rather not be the sucker paying for the guy who never saves money and whose plan for paying for health care is bankruptcy and/or just being a flake.

Little tip....you are going to be paying still.

How's that budget deficit working?
How's that border going?
How's social security faring?

And you have some delusions that health care isn't going to get added to that list?

Our loveable Fed Gov has run this country into the ground. Our border is broke while we protect the borders of foreign countries.

Social Security is broke

Medicare is broke

Jobs are leaving the country left and right

Face it, WE are flat broke



But hey! They will run health care just fine!

petegz28
06-29-2011, 08:57 PM
Well, other than that whole fine that the right is agonizing over, anyway.

Really, that fine is the crux of the matter. If you think the fine is "not shit", then you don't have a legal reason to bitch about the mandate.

Maybe your health care plan would be different (I'd personally require only cheaper catastrophic high-deductible coverage which would mostly solve the freeloader problem while not encouraging people to use the coverage often until they need to), but any significant reform requires people who currently could pay in but choose not to, to pay in. Whether its a mandate to buy insurance, or a tax increase to fund national health care, or whatever, we should under no circumstance tolerate people choosing to go uninsured when they could afford insurance.

WTF do you think is going to pay the increased tax? Certainly not the people who don't pay taxes as it is.

Rest easy, alnorth, we are not going to tolerate people going uninsured. People like you and I are going to buy their insurance so they can still have their IPod's and cell phone's.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 09:01 PM
Its actually stronger than car insurance, because many safe drivers never get into an at-fault accident, and the fine/punishment for driving uninsured is often a hell of a lot higher than this health care fine.

On car insurance, many people argue "well that doesn't count, you don't have to buy a car, you are making me buy health insurance just for breathing." I'd respond by saying that the people who don't drive do not count. If you do not drive, there's no good reason to have car insurance, and not having insurance wont cost anyone else any money. For everyone who wants to drive, we don't want to hear any bullcrap about them not wanting to buy insurance, we don't trust anyone to have any money if they screw up, so they have to go buy insurance.

The only difference with health insurance is the pool of people is larger (as in, everybody). Simply by breathing, you will almost inevitably use health care. Even if you are healthy as a horse, weigh 150 all your life, eat tofu, and die when you are 95, you are likely going to start going to the hospital and racking up the bills at the end, and you could suffer an expensive injury at any time.

So yes, by breathing, if you have money you arguably could be compelled to buy health insurance, just like we don't want to tolerate flake parasites who want to drive uninsured with no plan to pay anyone back for hitting them.

Yep totally agree. Very good post al

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:03 PM
Yep totally agree. Very good post al

JFC, what fucking Utopia do you guys live in? We aren't going to tolerate people not having insurance like we don't tolerate uninsured drivers?

It's as if the entire illegal immigration problem is lost on you.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 09:04 PM
And I can tell you from first hand experience a lot of that comes from people such as illegals going to the ER because they have a fucking cold. I have seen it. First hand.

The have's will continue to pay for the have not's and mark my words, they will be paying more than they are now under this plan.

Which is why we need comprehensive immigration reform and start the process of getting the illegals on the tax rolls. But it is not just illegals I would surmise it is mostly poor people or people that don't have health insurance who frequent the ER the most.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:09 PM
Here is the scenario some of you are pretending isn't going to happen..

If you are going to criticize Obamacare, at least understand it.

Johnny looses his job because his employer now HAS to provide a certail level of insurance so it costs him more and he has to cut back on people....

Fair enough, one of the only valid points here.

This also touches on minimum wage arguments. Paying $7.25 (or more in some states) is just the cost of business. Unemployment might fall marginally among mostly high schoolers if we let employers pay only 3 bucks, but we've collectively decided this is the minimum wage.

Johnny is not out of work and has no money to buy insurance....let's hope Johnny stays healthy...

Since subsidized (all the way down to basically free if poor enough) insurance is needs-based, there's really no reason for him to pray he's healthy, unless he's too lazy to get the insurance. The cost to help the poor get insurance is mostly a wash because we already indirectly pay for their health care anyway.

Johnny found a job! Only the employer doesn't provide insurance and instead just gives him a little money to help him get his own.

Sweet. His employer is punished if its big enough, and again, aid for buying health insurance is needs-based. If his new wage is low, he'll still get help. Subsidies go all the way up to 400% of the poverty line. (people who are at 150% of poverty or lower won't have to pay more than $50/month, maximum, under any circumstance.

Johnny says even with that little money he can't afford it so he doesn't buy insurance...let's hope Johnny stays healty

Johnny is a moron. If he can afford it and isn't getting heavily subsidized by the government, he'll likely get fined anyway. If he's in Los Angeles or downtown New York, Johnny should move the hell out of the highest cost of living areas of the county.

Uh oh, Johnny is sick, has to go to the doctor buy has no insurance.....let's hope you don't mind a little extra coming out of your pocket to pay for Johnny's office visit

I have no sympathy for Johnny. He either passed up heavily subsidized insurance because he was too lazy to do paperwork, or he could afford it and was a moron. In any case he still gets health care, and he could still go to his local lawyer and go BK, just like today.

Because of Johnny and others like him Congress has determined that despite the mandate only certain people can still afford health insurance so they are going to raise taxes so the Johnny's of the world don't have to buy it, you do!

People who need health care, are going to go get health care, period. The overall use of the health care system will not skyrocket. We already are paying out the ass for the uninsured, this system will punch the freeloaders who could afford insurance in the back with a cattle prod to go buy it and stop relying on us.

We are talking about making the same people we give tax refunds to every year suddenly buying insurance because the gub'ment said they have too. Then they will cry they can't afford it so the guv'ment will give them a tax break for their insurance then scream the rich don't pay enough in taxes.

Again, the poor get subsidized insurance. The screaming wont be from them.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:10 PM
Which is why we need comprehensive immigration reform and start the process of getting the illegals on the tax rolls. But it is not just illegals I would surmise it is mostly poor people or people that don't have health insurance who frequent the ER the most.

Here's an idea, now call me silly but why don't we do the illegal reform thing, fix the waste and fraud in medicare, and produce some actual logical laws before we start forcing mandates down the throats of everyone else?

Not to mention the dirty little secret the media and the Left want to gloss over is this is probably the biggest hypocrisy of Obama. I do recall him slamming Hillary repeatedly during his campaign because she wanted everyone to have to buy health insurance and he wasn't going to go that route. SSSSSH! Don't tell anyone I told you that.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:14 PM
Rest easy, alnorth, we are not going to tolerate people going uninsured. People like you and I are going to buy their insurance so they can still have their IPod's and cell phone's.

We're paying for the poor now, and in this health care plan. Our cost to pay for them is going to be about the same either way.

You might be totally cool with a guy making 50k deciding he doesn't feel like buying insurance, just because, but I'm not cool with that.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:15 PM
Which is why we need comprehensive immigration reform and start the process of getting the illegals on the tax rolls.

well, that or force them all to leave by not allowing employers to hire them.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:15 PM
If you are going to criticize Obamacare, at least understand it.



Fair enough, one of the only valid points here.

This also touches on minimum wage arguments. Paying $7.25 (or more in some states) is just the cost of business. Unemployment might fall marginally among mostly high schoolers if we let employers pay only 3 bucks, but we've collectively decided this is the minimum wage.



Since subsidized (all the way down to basically free if poor enough) insurance is needs-based, there's really no reason for him to pray he's healthy, unless he's too lazy to get the insurance. The cost to help the poor get insurance is mostly a wash because we already indirectly pay for their health care anyway.



Sweet. His employer is punished if its big enough, and again, aid for buying health insurance is needs-based. If his new wage is low, he'll still get help. Subsidies go all the way up to 400% of the poverty line. (people who are at 150% of poverty or lower won't have to pay more than $50/month, maximum, under any circumstance.



Johnny is a moron. If he can afford it and isn't getting heavily subsidized by the government, he'll likely get fined anyway. If he's in Los Angeles or downtown New York, Johnny should move the hell out of the highest cost of living areas of the county.



I have no sympathy for Johnny. He either passed up heavily subsidized insurance because he was too lazy to do paperwork, or he could afford it and was a moron. In any case he still gets health care, and he could still go to his local lawyer and go BK, just like today.



People who need health care, are going to go get health care, period. The overall use of the health care system will not skyrocket. We already are paying out the ass for the uninsured, this system will punch the freeloaders who could afford insurance in the back with a cattle prod to go buy it and stop relying on us.



Again, the poor get subsidized insurance. The screaming wont be from them.

Dream world! You are living in a dream world!!!

Firstly, WTF would we hear the poor screaming about them getting something that someone else is paying for???

Secondly, many employers will find the fine cheaper than paying the insurance anyway.

Thirdly, as you said, Johnny is going to have health care regardless, and as I have said and you have gone a long way about proving, WE will STILL be paying for it.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:20 PM
We're paying for the poor now, and in this health care plan. Our cost to pay for them is going to be about the same either way.

You might be totally cool with a guy making 50k deciding he doesn't feel like buying insurance, just because, but I'm not cool with that.

So you feel some sense of satisfaction because of a mandate? As you said, you are going to be paying for it anyway so your ego is the issue with you?

I'm not cool with someone making $50k and choosing not to buy insurance. But that isn't going to change 1 iota. Under Obama's plan he isn't going to pay for it until he needs it and then the insurance companies will be forced to let him buy it costing them more money and us. See, nothing gets fixed. That's the whole point, this is just a power grab. It does little if anything to actually lower health care costs. If anything it's going to cost jobs and make things mroe expensive.


Pelosi said this bill would create 400,000 jobs IMMEDIATELY!! Well, WTF are the jobs?

Obama said employer health insurance costs would drop by over 3000%!!! BZZZZT...WRONG AGAIN!

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 09:20 PM
Here's an idea, now call me silly but why don't we do the illegal reform thing, fix the waste and fraud in medicare, and produce some actual logical laws before we start forcing mandates down the throats of everyone else?

Not to mention the dirty little secret the media and the Left want to gloss over is this is probably the biggest hypocrisy of Obama. I do recall him slamming Hillary repeatedly during his campaign because she wanted everyone to have to buy health insurance and he wasn't going to go that route. SSSSSH! Don't tell anyone I told you that.

How about we do the comprehensive immigration reform, scrap Obamacare and go with Medicare For All with the option of using private insurance to cover the other 20% or just make Medicare for All 100%. The government will take the premium out of your check, SS, Medicaid on a monthly basis. Problem solved.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:21 PM
well, that or force them all to leave by not allowing employers to hire them.

How about we enforce the laws on the books as they are now? Why do we need new laws to fix laws that are not broken, just not enforced?

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:23 PM
How about we do the comprehensive immigration reform, scrap Obamacare and go with Medicare For All with the option of using private insurance to cover the other 20% or just make Medicare for All 100%. The government will take the premium out of your check, SS, Medicaid on a monthly basis. Problem solved.

Well, if you read one of my earlier posts I said that is about the only way this whole mandate thing would be legal.

the only problem is, as I have said now umpteen times, look at the state of SS and Medicaid. Why would you think health care would work out differently?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:25 PM
Dream world! You are living in a dream world!!!

Firstly, WTF would we hear the poor screaming about them getting something that someone else is paying for???

Secondly, many employers will find the fine cheaper than paying the insurance anyway.

Thirdly, as you said, Johnny is going to have health care regardless, and as I have said and you have gone a long way about proving, WE will STILL be paying for it.

Firstly, the poor are irrelevant. Now: we are their insurance provider. Hospitals jack up their rates, and the insurers pass it on to us. Future: We buy most or all their insurance. Hospitals have a more reliable source of income so health care costs and insurance rates go down, but its not a net win for us because we'll be paying the insurance companies.

Second, the fine is for large employers over 50 people. The McDonald's and retail stores of the world still don't have to insure their hourly employees. When you talk about very large employers, they will more typically want to provide insurance to not lose talent to the competition. You seem to think the cost of insurance and health care will go up. I don't think it will. OUR cost as taxpayers may go up, but the insurance companies and the hospitals will be in better shape, now that they no longer have to write off as many charitable uninsured losses.

Third, well yeah of course. My point is that we are "still paying for it" now. Why is "still paying for it" in the future some new ghastly harm? At least now your johnny will be paying a few hundred bucks in fines, and many people who choose to be uninsured today will choose to buy insurance to avoid the fine.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:27 PM
The biggest thing the fucked up Dems could have done to fix health care was to get it out of the employer arena altogether. Force the insurance companies to sell health insurance just like they do auto, life and home. It would force an extreme amount of competition thus giving everyone a level playing field when it comes to insurance premiums.

It would reduce the financial burned on employers
Eliminate the caddilac plans only afforded to large companies
Increase competition across the board
And keep it out of the hands of the fucking government

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 09:27 PM
Well, if you read one of my earlier posts I said that is about the only way this whole mandate thing would be legal.

the only problem is, as I have said now umpteen times, look at the state of SS and Medicaid. Why would you think health care would work out differently?

I am not expecting it to work out differently. I think it is a pipe dream that medical costs are going to decrease. There are always new procedures, new drugs, etc that cost a lot of money.

We can either keep it the way it is and keep paying for the 50 million uninsured or get everybody involved and make it a shared sacrifice from infants to the day you die.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:29 PM
Firstly, the poor are irrelevant. Now: we are their insurance provider. Hospitals jack up their rates, and the insurers pass it on to us. Future: We buy most or all their insurance. Hospitals have a more reliable source of income so health care costs and insurance rates go down, but its not a net win for us because we'll be paying the insurance companies.

Second, the fine is for large employers over 50 people. The McDonald's and retail stores of the world still don't have to insure their hourly employees. When you talk about very large employers, they will more typically want to provide insurance to not lose talent to the competition. You seem to think the cost of insurance and health care will go up. I don't think it will. OUR cost as taxpayers may go up, but the insurance companies and the hospitals will be in better shape, now that they no longer have to write off as many charitable uninsured losses.

Third, well yeah of course. My point is that we are "still paying for it" now. Why is "still paying for it" in the future some new ghastly harm? At least now your johnny will be paying a few hundred bucks in fines, and many people who choose to be uninsured today will choose to buy insurance to avoid the fine.

The cost will go up because you are going to have an increasing amount of people who are paying little or nothing for their insurance using services more than they ever have, because they can!

Plus the more than obvious yet for some reason ignored fact that the Fed Gov is now involved which means it will cost us more one way or the other because they will find a way to fuck it all up.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:30 PM
So you feel some sense of satisfaction because of a mandate? As you said, you are going to be paying for it anyway so your ego is the issue with you?

I'm not cool with someone making $50k and choosing not to buy insurance. But that isn't going to change 1 iota. Under Obama's plan he isn't going to pay for it until he needs it and then the insurance companies will be forced to let him buy it costing them more money and us. See, nothing gets fixed. That's the whole point, this is just a power grab. It does little if anything to actually lower health care costs. If anything it's going to cost jobs and make things mroe expensive.


Pelosi said this bill would create 400,000 jobs IMMEDIATELY!! Well, WTF are the jobs?

Obama said employer health insurance costs would drop by over 3000%!!! BZZZZT...WRONG AGAIN!

You seem to live in this fantasyland where everyone who doesn't have insurance wont have insurance if a fine makes the net cost of insurance vs a fine a pretty low gap. A lot of people will look at the cost of insurance as the gap between the premium and the fine. If the gap is a few hundred dollars a year (vs a thousand or more), a lot of people will say "ok screw it, I'll buy the insurance")

The taxpayers as a whole might pay more, but the subset of taxpayers who are responsible people will win if a lot of people are forced to share the burden.

As for Pelosi saying something moronic, I'm not sure that is really a new thing.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:33 PM
I am not expecting it to work out differently. I think it is a pipe dream that medical costs are going to decrease. There are always new procedures, new drugs, etc that cost a lot of money.

We can either keep it the way it is and keep paying for the 50 million uninsured or get everybody involved and make it a shared sacrifice from infants to the day you die.

There are ways to steady the costs and they are not hard. But the Fed Gov won't have their finger in it like the Dems want so we can't go down that route.

Truth is, we are keeping it the same but not really. It will be worse. Medical device makers will be taxed more on the devices they produce. How does that make things cheaper? Prescription drugs will be taxed more. How does that make things cheaper?

The Fed Gov is now in charge....it will not be cheaper. Why in the world would you ever think this is going to make things cheaper?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:35 PM
The biggest thing the ****ed up Dems could have done to fix health care was to get it out of the employer arena altogether. Force the insurance companies to sell health insurance just like they do auto, life and home. It would force an extreme amount of competition thus giving everyone a level playing field when it comes to insurance premiums.

It would reduce the financial burned on employers
Eliminate the caddilac plans only afforded to large companies
Increase competition across the board
And keep it out of the hands of the ****ing government

uhhh.... employers and group health plans are not driving up the cost of insurance. Group health care will almost always be superior to individual policies in affordability for all but the healthiest individuals, which is why they are trying to create group health care plans outside the employers with these health insurance pools.

Kinda odd that you decry government intervention on one hand, but on the other you'd want to use the might of the government to forbid employers from buying insurance.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:37 PM
You seem to live in this fantasyland where everyone who doesn't have insurance wont have insurance if a fine makes the net cost of insurance vs a fine a pretty low gap. A lot of people will look at the cost of insurance as the gap between the premium and the fine. If the gap is a few hundred dollars a year (vs a thousand or more), a lot of people will say "ok screw it, I'll buy the insurance")

The taxpayers as a whole might pay more, but the subset of taxpayers who are responsible people will win if a lot of people are forced to share the burden.

As for Pelosi saying something moronic, I'm not sure that is really a new thing.

You give people way too much credit. But let's just play this out a bit. Let's say a person opts to pay the fine. WTF is the FED Gov going to do with that money? Is that going to be given back to the people who footed the bill? Is it going to be dispursed among the medical community? Or is it just going to be spent on more bullshit thus negating the point of the fine in the first place?

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:39 PM
uhhh.... employers and group health plans are not driving up the cost of insurance. Group health care will almost always be superior to individual policies in affordability for all but the healthiest individuals, which is why they are trying to create group health care plans outside the employers with these health insurance pools.

Kinda odd that you decry government intervention on one hand, but on the other you'd want to use the might of the government to forbid employers from buying insurance.

See, you are not paying attention. I said I don't want them in charge of it. There is a small but very significant difference.

And yes, group plans do drive up the costs because the affordable plans are focused on the few who work for large companies.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:40 PM
There are always new procedures, new drugs, etc that cost a lot of money.

well, true. I'll revise and say instead that under our current system, prices would rise higher and faster than they will under obamacare, when the hospitals don't have to write off as many costs. People who have the money but choose not to buy insurance will start to pay more one way or another, and hopefully it will be a wash or a net win for the responsible people who currently chose to be insured.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 09:41 PM
There are ways to steady the costs and they are not hard. But the Fed Gov won't have their finger in it like the Dems want so we can't go down that route.

Truth is, we are keeping it the same but not really. It will be worse. Medical device makers will be taxed more on the devices they produce. How does that make things cheaper? Prescription drugs will be taxed more. How does that make things cheaper?

The Fed Gov is now in charge....it will not be cheaper. Why in the world would you ever think this is going to make things cheaper?

I never said or expected it was going to be cheaper.

BTW this is an interesting stat

Medicare per capita spending has grown at a slightly lower rate, on average, than private health insurance spending, at about 6.8 vs. 7.1% annually respectively between 1998 and 2008

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:42 PM
Gov going to do with that money?

I don't give a rat's ass.

Its a tax increase levied against stupid or irresponsible people. A few hundred dollars they pay is a few hundred dollars less the rest of us have to pay for the poor.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:48 PM
I don't give a rat's ass.

Its a tax increase levied against stupid or irresponsible people. A few hundred dollars they pay is a few hundred dollars less the rest of us have to pay for the poor.

Ah, I see so we get stuck with the bill of the stupid people while the Fed Gov collects a tax for us paying the bill of the stupid people.

In other words you like getting ass fucked???

WTF did we need this bill for again?

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:48 PM
I never said or expected it was going to be cheaper.

BTW this is an interesting stat

Why has it increased?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:49 PM
group plans do drive up the costs because the affordable plans are focused on the few who work for large companies.

There is a good fundamental economic reason why group health plans are superior to individual plans. If you somehow destroyed the group health plan and everyone who could buy insurance could only pay for individual plans, health insurance costs would increase.

In all circumstances, whether through an employer, a private health insurance purchasing group, or the government, group health plans are always preferable if your goal is lower rates.

For starters, the expenses are lower. If the insurance company can be assured they will get x% of sick, y% of medium, and z% of healthy people, they don't have to spend as much money to service and underwrite the policy, so the insurance company will need fewer employees, and the group also has a much greater amount of bargaining power than any individual.

Honestly, if my goal was to make insurance more expensive (for all but the most healthy people), I could not think of many things that could better accomplish that goal than to destroy group health plans.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:49 PM
well, true. I'll revise and say instead that under our current system, prices would rise higher and faster than they will under obamacare, when the hospitals don't have to write off as many costs. People who have the money but choose not to buy insurance will start to pay more one way or another, and hopefully it will be a wash or a net win for the responsible people who currently chose to be insured.

And you accused me of not understanding the bill? This bill raises taxes on medical device makers by double digits! Same for prescription drugs. How again is this going to slow anything?

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:51 PM
Ah, I see so we get stuck with the bill of the stupid people while the Fed Gov collects a tax for us paying the bill of the stupid people.

In other words you like getting ass ****ed???

WTF did we need this bill for again?

As opposed to getting stuck with the bill for the stupid people and them paying NOTHING?!?

:spock:

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:51 PM
There is a good fundamental economic reason why group health plans are superior to individual plans. If you somehow destroyed the group health plan and everyone who could buy insurance could only pay for individual plans, health insurance costs would increase.

In all circumstances, whether through an employer, a private health insurance purchasing group, or the government, group health plans are always preferable if your goal is lower rates.

For starters, the expenses are lower. If the insurance company can be assured they will get x% of sick, y% of medium, and z% of healthy people, they don't have to spend as much money to service and underwrite the policy, so the insurance company will need fewer employees, and the group also has a much amount of bargaining power.

Honestly, if my goal was to make insurance more expensive (for all but the most healthy people), I could not think of many things that could better accomplish that goal than to destroy group health plans.

OMG, seriosuly? WTF do you get that? If everyone had to buy individual plans prices would drop across the board due to competition in and of itself.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:54 PM
As opposed to getting stuck with the bill for the stupid people and them paying NOTHING?!?

:spock:

Their gonna pay nothing anyway. Even if they pay the fine it isn't going to benefit anyone in any way anyway.

Now, if the amount collected in fines was allowed to be collectively deducted from the tax payers that followed the rules you might have something.

But all this is is me paying the bill anyway while the fed gov collects the fine to spend on who knows what?

That's not a very good deal at all.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:58 PM
And you accused me of not understanding the bill? This bill raises taxes on medical device makers by double digits! Same for prescription drugs. How again is this going to slow anything?

eh, its not perfect and I'd do without it, but compared to uncompensated care for the poor and middle class freeloaders, its peanuts. The tax on medical devices (how many people buy those, really) is about 2.5% of the cost. The Pharmaceutical company tax will raise about $2.5B, which will presumably passed on.

Meanwhile, in 2009 alone, we spent over $62B on uncompensated care.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 09:59 PM
Their gonna pay nothing anyway. Even if they pay the fine it isn't going to benefit anyone in any way anyway.

I stopped reading here. You can't type both of those sentences without being insane.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:01 PM
eh, its not perfect and I'd do without it, but compared to uncompensated care for the poor and middle class freeloaders, its peanuts. The tax on medical devices (how many people buy those, really) is about 2.5% of the cost. The Pharmaceutical company tax will raise about $2.5B, which will presumably passed on.

Meanwhile, in 2009 alone, we spent over $62B on uncompensated care.

How many people buy those? Oh, I don't know, just about every doctor's office and hospital. But hey, it's ok to raise their costs, right?

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:02 PM
I stopped reading here. You can't type both of those sentences without being insane.

No, what is insane is feeling you are getting something out of the fine that someone pays to someone else for your paying someone else's medical bill in which none of the fine is ever returned to you.

alnorth
06-29-2011, 10:02 PM
OMG, seriosuly? WTF do you get that? If everyone had to buy individual plans prices would drop across the board due to competition in and of itself.

You are ignorant on the issue of group health plans. Eliminating group health plans, to be blunt, would be retarded.

Large groups are NOT SHY at ALL about shopping almost every year, and using the power of numbers to force insurance companies to give in. Who are you? You are just quote #23,508,773. Compared to, say, General Electric or the Federal Government, you aren't worth anyone's time. Here's our price, take it or leave it.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:04 PM
eh, its not perfect and I'd do without it, but compared to uncompensated care for the poor and middle class freeloaders, its peanuts. The tax on medical devices (how many people buy those, really) is about 2.5% of the cost. The Pharmaceutical company tax will raise about $2.5B, which will presumably passed on.

Meanwhile, in 2009 alone, we spent over $62B on uncompensated care.

$62b? WOW! And we handed over trillions to banks and automakers and political chronies.

Do you realize the stimulus alone would have paid for over 10 years of uncompensated care? Toss in the auto and wall st bailouts and you are probably in the area of 20-30 years.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:05 PM
You are ignorant on the issue of group health plans. Eliminating group health plans, to be blunt, would be retarded.

Large groups are NOT SHY at ALL about shopping almost every year, and using the power of numbers to force insurance companies to give in. Who are you? You are just quote #23,508,773. Compared to, say, General Electric or the Federal Government, you aren't worth anyone's time. Here's our price, take it or leave it.

Yes, you are correct. As long as you remove competition for business out of the model, anyway.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 10:05 PM
OMG, seriosuly? WTF do you get that? If everyone had to buy individual plans prices would drop across the board due to competition in and of itself.

You don't actually believe this do you?

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:07 PM
You don't actually believe this do you?

I believe in the free market and competition. If comapny A can charge less than company B and take some market share they will.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 10:07 PM
$62b? WOW! And we handed over trillions to banks and automakers and political chronies.

Do you realize the stimulus alone would have paid for over 10 years of uncompensated care? Toss in the auto and wall st bailouts and you are probably in the area of 20-30 years.

And a new report is out we have spent over $4 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden is smarter than we were.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:09 PM
And a new report is out we have spent over $4 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden is smarter than we were.

Aside from the Bin Laden comment which I don't really get, there ya go. See, obviously this is getting overblown. You have proved exactly why I don't want the Fed Gov in charge of this stuff.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 10:10 PM
I believe in the free market and competition. If comapny A can charge less than company B and take some market share they will.

There is nothing stopping them now for doing that now yet it hasn't happened.

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 10:13 PM
Aside from the Bin Laden comment which I don't really get, there ya go. See, obviously this is getting overblown. You have proved exactly why I don't want the Fed Gov in charge of this stuff.

He knew how we would react, more like over react.

Without the wars we could have funded health care for everybody in this country

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:13 PM
There is nothing stopping them now for doing that now yet it hasn't happened.

DING! DING! Mother fucking DING!

I guess they will turn a new leaf when it comes to our health care though, right?

FD
06-29-2011, 10:13 PM
I believe in the free market and competition. If comapny A can charge less than company B and take some market share they will.

:doh!: Health insurance markets are not like other markets, to understand why, I recommend starting with Rothschild and Stiglitz, 1976. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1885326)

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:14 PM
He knew how we would react, more like over react.

Without the wars we could have funded health care for everybody in this country

I'd say with the wars we could have. There is a ton of wasteful spending.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:14 PM
:doh!: Health insurance markets are not like other markets, to understand why, I recommend starting with Rothschild and Stiglitz, 1976. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1885326)

Are health insurance companies in business to make a profit? Yes or no?

FD
06-29-2011, 10:18 PM
Are health insurance companies in business to make a profit? Yes or no?

I'm not sure you've had time to read the article. You really should, it won a Nobel prize for economics. Its pretty helpful to understanding how markets for things like insurance works. We can talk after you read and digest it. Its ok, I'll wait.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:20 PM
I'm not sure you've had time to read the article. You really should, it won a Nobel prize for economics. Its pretty helpful to understanding how markets for things like insurance works. We can talk after you read and digest it. Its ok, I'll wait.

Are insurance companies in business to make a profit? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

FD
06-29-2011, 10:22 PM
Are insurance companies in business to make a profit? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Its ok, I'll wait.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2011, 10:23 PM
The Commerce Clause been abused for a long time, setting abusive precedents. A Bush appointee not going by a stricter construction doesn't actually surprise since the Bushies were never really conservative.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:24 PM
Its ok, I'll wait.

If you can't answer such a basic question then this is pointless. Business is business is business is business.

FD
06-29-2011, 10:25 PM
If you can't answer such a basic question then this is pointless. Business is business is business is business.

Some markets function differently than others. Insurance markets are one of them. Read the article. Its ok, I'll wait.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:29 PM
Some markets function differently than others. Insurance markets are one of them. Read the article. Its ok, I'll wait.

Markets are what the industry makes them. Competition exists in every market. The fundamentals of business are uniform. They all have one ultimate goal....MAKE MONEY!

BucEyedPea
06-29-2011, 10:49 PM
Markets are what the industry makes them. Competition exists in every market. The fundamentals of business are uniform. They all have one ultimate goal....MAKE MONEY!

Yup! :thumb:

|Zach|
06-29-2011, 11:52 PM
100% disagree. We could easily mandate that you eat only healthy foods thereby putting yourself in better health thereby lowering health issues thereby reducing the costs of health care.

It's a slippery ****ing slope. People who are making excuses for this have no idea what they are getting us into. Nevermind the fact you are putting your health care and control of it into the hands of the ****ed up government. I know, I know, we can still have our doctors and all that bs.

Just be around when the day comes and you realize just wtf we did if this stands so I can say I told you so.

It doesn't take you long to quit talking about something on its own merits. You love selling fear.

JohnnyV13
06-30-2011, 02:51 AM
I think there is no way that Scalia can vote against the law after his decision in Gonzalez v Raich. Not if he hopes to retain any credibility, that is. I think his concurrence in Raich was horrible and will haunt him the rest of his career.

Sure he can. Under Scalia's Raich analysis, the government's power to impose Obamacare would come from the "necessary and proper" clause.

Scalia stated that the commerce clause allowed the government to regulate 1) channels of commerce 2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce or people/things in interstate commerce and 3) things that "substantially affect" interstate commerce or 4) activity that "make a regulatory scheme effective"

3& 4 do not come from the commerce clause alone, but are based upon BOTH the commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause.

Obviously, compelling people to enter a marketplace will have to draw its authority from 4.

Well, it may very well be necessary to compel everyone to enter the marketplace for Obamacare to work, but what about "proper"? Scalia's Raich opinion did note that violating state law sovereignty was not "proper" in one of his cited precedents. Also, McCulloch v. Maryland required that the means by which the law is effected be "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" even if the constitutional end is valid.

Scalia could easily find that "compelling people to enter a marketplace" is not "proper" or "appropriate" since 1) its really unprecedented in US law, 2) is in direct conflict with individual liberty and 3) violates the basic precept of a "free" market. Scalia could easily find ample precident that characterizes America as having a "free market system" (especially during the cold war era) and it being one of America's defining characteristics.

Hence, under McCulloch, even though the end of providing health care through Obamacare is constitutionally valid; Obamacare fails due to inappropriate means of effecting the law.

JohnnyV13
06-30-2011, 03:13 AM
Its actually stronger than car insurance, because many safe drivers never get into an at-fault accident, and the fine/punishment for driving uninsured is often a hell of a lot higher than this health care fine.

On car insurance, many people argue "well that doesn't count, you don't have to buy a car, you are making me buy health insurance just for breathing." I'd respond by saying that the people who don't drive do not count. If you do not drive, there's no good reason to have car insurance, and not having insurance wont cost anyone else any money. For everyone who wants to drive, we don't want to hear any bullcrap about them not wanting to buy insurance, we don't trust anyone to have any money if they screw up, so they have to go buy insurance.



The car insurance argument doesn't apply b/c that comes under state law regulation. Federal regulation requires authority from the federal constitution.

mlyonsd
06-30-2011, 06:56 AM
He knew how we would react, more like over react.

Without the wars we could have funded health care for everybody in this countryYou sound just like a baby boomer. Gimmee gimmee gimmee.

go bowe
06-30-2011, 09:51 AM
You sound just like a baby boomer. Gimmee gimmee gimmee.

i don't understand all this antipathy towards boomers...

they have paid their share during their working lives...

the only thing wrong with boomers, imo, is that there are so many of them reaching retirement age all at once...

Cave Johnson
06-30-2011, 09:53 AM
Just be around when the day comes and you realize just wtf we did if this stands so I can say I told you so.

Pete explicitly states his raison d'ętre on the board.

FD
06-30-2011, 10:05 AM
Sure he can. Under Scalia's Raich analysis, the government's power to impose Obamacare would come from the "necessary and proper" clause.

Scalia stated that the commerce clause allowed the government to regulate 1) channels of commerce 2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce or people/things in interstate commerce and 3) things that "substantially affect" interstate commerce or 4) activity that "make a regulatory scheme effective"

3& 4 do not come from the commerce clause alone, but are based upon BOTH the commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause.

Obviously, compelling people to enter a marketplace will have to draw its authority from 4.

Well, it may very well be necessary to compel everyone to enter the marketplace for Obamacare to work, but what about "proper"? Scalia's Raich opinion did note that violating state law sovereignty was not "proper" in one of his cited precedents. Also, McCulloch v. Maryland required that the means by which the law is effected be "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" even if the constitutional end is valid.

Scalia could easily find that "compelling people to enter a marketplace" is not "proper" or "appropriate" since 1) its really unprecedented in US law, 2) is in direct conflict with individual liberty and 3) violates the basic precept of a "free" market. Scalia could easily find ample precident that characterizes America as having a "free market system" (especially during the cold war era) and it being one of America's defining characteristics.

Hence, under McCulloch, even though the end of providing health care through Obamacare is constitutionally valid; Obamacare fails due to inappropriate means of effecting the law.

He could make that argument, but like I said I think he loses all credibility if he does. The individual mandate doesn't compel anyone to enter the stream of commerce, because almost everyone, no matter what choices they make, already utilize health care services. The mandate just timing and manner of how they finance them, but everyone is already in the stream of commerce. So everything he said in Raich applies to the mandate.

mlyonsd
06-30-2011, 10:19 AM
i don't understand all this antipathy towards boomers...

they have paid their share during their working lives...

the only thing wrong with boomers, imo, is that there are so many of them reaching retirement age all at once...I think the logic goes we're responsible for letting the politicians of the last 30 years screw up the country as bad as it has. No doubt there's at least partial truth there.

It's either that or if we all just get it over and croak now the country's problems would mostly disappear.

go bowe
06-30-2011, 10:23 AM
I think the logic goes we're responsible for letting the politicians of the last 30 years screw up the country as bad as it has. No doubt there's at least partial truth there.

It's either that or if we all just get it over and croak now the country's problems would mostly disappear.

but but but i only voted for winners...

oh, wait...



and i have no plans to croak any time soon for the benefit of god and country, or any other reason for that matter...

JohnnyV13
06-30-2011, 02:07 PM
He could make that argument, but like I said I think he loses all credibility if he does. The individual mandate doesn't compel anyone to enter the stream of commerce, because almost everyone, no matter what choices they make, already utilize health care services. The mandate just timing and manner of how they finance them, but everyone is already in the stream of commerce. So everything he said in Raich applies to the mandate.

I doubt scalia will see it that way. And, I have doubts about this argument.

Just because everyone drinks water, doesn't mean that the federal government has the right to compel you to buy perrier, aquafina and Arrowhead spring water.

Timing of when you enter a marketplace seems like a pretty fundamental issue with respect to "freedom" to me. I don't think Scalia would necessarily have to be hypocritical to find against Obamacare. It could come directly from his Raich analysis without any conflict. I suspect you are allowing your bias in favor of Obamacare to color your reasoning.

FD
06-30-2011, 04:31 PM
I doubt scalia will see it that way. And, I have doubts about this argument.

Just because everyone drinks water, doesn't mean that the federal government has the right to compel you to buy perrier, aquafina and Arrowhead spring water.

Timing of when you enter a marketplace seems like a pretty fundamental issue with respect to "freedom" to me. I don't think Scalia would necessarily have to be hypocritical to find against Obamacare. It could come directly from his Raich analysis without any conflict. I suspect you are allowing your bias in favor of Obamacare to color your reasoning.

Bias in favor of Obamacare? I am neither for nor against Obamacare, not being enough of a health economics expert to form a sound opinion on the law as a whole. And the Supreme Court diverged from my personal opinion on the Commerce Clause in the 1930's. I'm just giving my prediction of how the court would rule based on the precedents built up since then. I thought the 6th circuit's decision put it well:

Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one’s health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care. The ubiquity and unpredictability of the need for medical care is born out by the statistics. More than eighty percent of adults nationwide visited a doctor or other health care professional one or more times in 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2009, table 35 (2010). Additionally, individuals receive health care services regardless of whether they can afford the treatment. The obligation to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay is imposed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, state laws, and many institutions’ charitable missions. The unavoidable need for health care coupled with the obligation to provide treatment make it virtually certain that all individuals will require and receive health care at some point. Thus, although there is no firm, constitutional bar that prohibits Congress from placing regulations on what could be described as inactivity, even if there were it would not impact this case due to the unique aspects of health care that make all individuals active in this market.

Jenson71
06-30-2011, 04:45 PM
Sure he can. Under Scalia's Raich analysis, the government's power to impose Obamacare would come from the "necessary and proper" clause.

Scalia stated that the commerce clause allowed the government to regulate 1) channels of commerce 2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce or people/things in interstate commerce and 3) things that "substantially affect" interstate commerce or 4) activity that "make a regulatory scheme effective"

3& 4 do not come from the commerce clause alone, but are based upon BOTH the commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause.

Obviously, compelling people to enter a marketplace will have to draw its authority from 4.

Well, it may very well be necessary to compel everyone to enter the marketplace for Obamacare to work, but what about "proper"? Scalia's Raich opinion did note that violating state law sovereignty was not "proper" in one of his cited precedents. Also, McCulloch v. Maryland required that the means by which the law is effected be "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" even if the constitutional end is valid.

Scalia could easily find that "compelling people to enter a marketplace" is not "proper" or "appropriate" since 1) its really unprecedented in US law, 2) is in direct conflict with individual liberty and 3) violates the basic precept of a "free" market. Scalia could easily find ample precident that characterizes America as having a "free market system" (especially during the cold war era) and it being one of America's defining characteristics.

Hence, under McCulloch, even though the end of providing health care through Obamacare is constitutionally valid; Obamacare fails due to inappropriate means of effecting the law.

Interesting post. Out of all the commerce clause cases I've read, I don't remember too many discussions over how much deference is given to Congress, acting as the primary decision-maker, under the Necessary and Proper Clause. I would have taken it that Congress is given full deference. And under that idea, I would agree with Forward Dante that Scalia's Raich concurrence compels a decision in favor of the Health Care law.

JohnnyV13
06-30-2011, 08:06 PM
Interesting post. Out of all the commerce clause cases I've read, I don't remember too many discussions over how much deference is given to Congress, acting as the primary decision-maker, under the Necessary and Proper Clause. I would have taken it that Congress is given full deference. And under that idea, I would agree with Forward Dante that Scalia's Raich concurrence compels a decision in favor of the Health Care law.

Jenson, have you read that concurrence?

Raich was pretty interesting, b/c I think you could see some clear result-oriented bias with how the justices came to their conclusions. Of course, they can't admit that, but it screams from between the lines.

Scalia's analysis is pretty interesting, b/c he seems to have quite a different jurisprudential approach to the commerce clause than everyone else. Now, I am not saying that he WILL make the above analysis; but that if he were to do so, it would hardly be contrary or hypocritical with respect to Raich.

Now, IIRC you said you thought Obamacare would succeed as the court is currently constructed. Actually, it seems to me that the Justice Dept. doesn't agree with you. Justice is not attempting to expedite this case to the supreme court. Instead, they're insisting on jumping through every possible appellate hoop. That doesn't seem like a sound strategy for someone who thinks they have a winning case.

Meanwhile, the Obamacare challengers are quite willing to expedite. Common sense suggests its very much within the public interest to have this law settled; given the fact that uncertaintly is one cause of economic inaction, and economic inaction is the primary problem in our economy today (companies sitting on capital, stifling job creation).

To me, this suggests either 1) the Obama administration is strategically stupid 2) Justice thinks they will lose, 3) Justice FEARS they will lose, and hopes that the more Obamacare is implemented it will gain public support (which will somehow sway judicial opinion). 4) Justice wants to play for time in the hopes one of the conservative wing will die/retire so Obama gets another appointment to ensure victory or 5)Justice doesn't want to risk Obama's biggest legislative accomplishment before the 2012 election.

Any way you cut it, Justice's behavior suggests they aren't very confident in their case.

JohnnyV13
06-30-2011, 08:44 PM
The unavoidable need for health care coupled with the obligation to provide treatment make it virtually certain that all individuals will require and receive health care at some point. Thus, although there is no firm, constitutional bar that prohibits Congress from placing regulations on what could be described as inactivity, even if there were it would not impact this case due to the unique aspects of health care that make all individuals active in this market.

This reasoning is unsound on its own merits.

The basic argument here is that since 1) virtually all individuals will receive treatment at some point, everyone can be constructively said to be active in the health care market.

However, his own facts show that substantial numbers do not participate in any given year (around 20%). Clear evidence suggests there is an admittedly small minority who never receive significant medical treatment (people who die before needing substantial care).

Cpmseqiently, his rationale is that since only very small numbers of individuals never participate in the health care market, we can conclude that everyone is active, which means a constitutional bar against regulating inactivity does not apply.

That's like saying: since only very small numbers of people are intersexed, any constitutional bar to discrimination against intersexed people does not apply. Since such a small percentage of people are intersexed, we can constructively say that EVERYONE qualifies as either male or female and thus there is no one to discriminate against.

Just because a particular class is very numerically small does not extinguish their constitutional rights. Nor can you constructively decide they don't exist.