Unconstitutionalcare

[Point of Order]

A little background I know on one of the judges might be helpful. Joel Dubina, co-author of the opinion, is from Montgomery, Alabama. He is the father of Martha Roby, republican U.S. House of Representatives congresswoman for Mobile. Dubina is very close personal friends with a federal judge named Mark Fuller who is best know for having former Alabama governor Don Seigelman placed on handcuffs and shackles immediately upon his conviction rather than allow him to spend a day with his family before turning himself in for sentencing (which is the general approach for non-violent crimes when the defendant has been out on bail). Dubina and Fuller are very close to Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama (after failing to gain confirmation to the federal bench based among other things on his use of offensive racial slurs in the office), and also to former Alabama Attorney General and current 11th Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a highly controversial appointee to the federal bench. His brother-in-law is a local judge who once asked me if a certain writer formerly the New York Times that he was familiar with and enjoyed reading was "a little liberal, though, isn't he?"

If this has already been covered I apologize.

 

[suburbia]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?

Because there are certain aspects to it that finally take care (hopefully) of some of the bullshirt that insurance companies were getting away with for years. No more denying coverage on alleged pre-existing conditions. No more putting a lifetime cap on the amount of money that a company will pay, thereby preventing people with serious illnesses or injuries from becoming bankrupt. And it allows parents to keep their kids on their plan longer while the kids are struggling in this economy to either get a FT job, or to use the job to pay back their student loans instead of having their checks deducted for insurance.

I thought this was different because this was the first time a Democrat deemed the individual mandate unconstitutional. And, JohnnyD, that is my question. Yes, our health care coverage system is a mess and, yes, something needs to be done. But it is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing. This law is a fiasco. For all the talk of bipartisianship when Obama took office, this was the biggest indication that he was just blowing smoke. Even recently the CBO found another $50 billion annually in hidden costs. We simply cannot afford this law, and the law does not even come close to doing what liberals want. All this does is tell John Q. Taxpayer he HAS to buy health insurance. How is this a good law?

Well, the GOP had power for almost 6 years. If they were serious about health care reform, they would have done something. They didn't.

I've said it before. Had the GOP done some sort of reform of the worst parts of the industry, such as the pre-existing bullshirt, or the "Usual and customary" crap, there wouldn't have been a need for Obamacare.

Baron, I agree with you. The GOP's refusal to tackle this in the six years it had the lead is inexcusable. That was yet another thing on Bush's long list of topics where he had a failureship to lead, and he does deserve to be taken to task for this. However...
Bush got hammered for his expensive prescription drug program that was yet another unfunded mandate. Obama's health care reform is much, much more of the same. They are still finding things in it that will add to the cost. Like I said, doing nothing was better than doing the wrong thing. However, I see your point that something had to be done. So this leads to the crux of the argument...yhis should have been handled quite differently. Passing something this huge on a purely partisan basis was a big mistake by Obama, and I really think despite all the talk about the debt limit and his percieved weakness there, the reason Obama is going to lose in 2012 is because of how Obamacare was passed against the will of the people. I think about the Dems prancing past the protestors on the Hill, what a show of arrogance that was. Nancy Pelosi and her friends just added fuel to the fire and MADE SURE the Tea Party and friends would not forget. That kind of set the tone for the rest of Obama's term.

What should have been done was a solid, if not unspectacular, approach to health care reform that incorporated ideas from all sides. Not a giant "F-You" approach. Something could have been done that was an actual positive achievement form Obama...a real legacy instead of what we ended up with. The Republicans showed up ready to talk and were told there was no room at the Inn. This is not Obama's fault, but it reflected badly on him because the entire process seemed so corrupt.
Meanwhile, again in a failure to message well, Obama's staff went with "we are going to add 30 million people to the health care insurance rolls, people who cannot afford to pay for it, and doing this will save us billions of dollars." Seriously, that was the message. Sometimes I wonder if Obama even has PR people.
I think this law will either be struck down or repealed. When this happens I hope the GOP can, instead of taking an Obama-bashing victory lap, actually get together with the other side to solve the problem correctly this time. I won't hold my breath.

Carlton, I give you credit for admitting the GOP's wrongdoing on healthcare. Though what ultimately passed was something that Republicans would have accepted when the Clintons tried this in 1993.

How about this idea: create a set of federal coverage standards (X% must be covered by Y date, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, etc.) and let each state develop its own system to meet those standards. If a state wants something like Mitt Romney signed in MA, that's OK. If a state wants a single-payer system like Vermont's governor signed a few months ago, that's OK too. The key is that each state is designing its own system, rather than a federally-mandated, one-size-fits-all system.

Would that have been more acceptable to you?

 

[Azrael]

President Nixon: "Say that I … I … I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I'm not too keen on any of these damn medical programs."

Ehrlichman: "This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …"

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: "This … this is a …"

President Nixon: "I don't [unclear] …"

Ehrlichman: "… private enterprise one."

President Nixon: "Well, that appeals to me."

Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …"

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: "… the less care they give them, the more money they make."

President Nixon: "Fine." [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] "… and the incentives run the right way."

President Nixon: "Not bad."




http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_taped_conversation_between_President_Richard_Nixon_and_John_D._Ehrlichman_(1971)_that_led_to_the_HMO_act_of_1973:

Can you try to add something to the conversation (for once) instead of posting something just to post something? 1973. Nearly 40 years ago. Yeah, that's relavant.

I guess I'm not sure how you'd presume to fix a problem without knowing how it became a problem.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?

Because there are certain aspects to it that finally take care (hopefully) of some of the bullshirt that insurance companies were getting away with for years. No more denying coverage on alleged pre-existing conditions. No more putting a lifetime cap on the amount of money that a company will pay, thereby preventing people with serious illnesses or injuries from becoming bankrupt. And it allows parents to keep their kids on their plan longer while the kids are struggling in this economy to either get a FT job, or to use the job to pay back their student loans instead of having their checks deducted for insurance.

I thought this was different because this was the first time a Democrat deemed the individual mandate unconstitutional. And, JohnnyD, that is my question. Yes, our health care coverage system is a mess and, yes, something needs to be done. But it is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing. This law is a fiasco. For all the talk of bipartisianship when Obama took office, this was the biggest indication that he was just blowing smoke. Even recently the CBO found another $50 billion annually in hidden costs. We simply cannot afford this law, and the law does not even come close to doing what liberals want. All this does is tell John Q. Taxpayer he HAS to buy health insurance. How is this a good law?

Well, the GOP had power for almost 6 years. If they were serious about health care reform, they would have done something. They didn't.

I've said it before. Had the GOP done some sort of reform of the worst parts of the industry, such as the pre-existing bullshirt, or the "Usual and customary" crap, there wouldn't have been a need for Obamacare.

Baron, I agree with you. The GOP's refusal to tackle this in the six years it had the lead is inexcusable. That was yet another thing on Bush's long list of topics where he had a failureship to lead, and he does deserve to be taken to task for this. However...
Bush got hammered for his expensive prescription drug program that was yet another unfunded mandate. Obama's health care reform is much, much more of the same. They are still finding things in it that will add to the cost. Like I said, doing nothing was better than doing the wrong thing. However, I see your point that something had to be done. So this leads to the crux of the argument...yhis should have been handled quite differently. Passing something this huge on a purely partisan basis was a big mistake by Obama, and I really think despite all the talk about the debt limit and his percieved weakness there, the reason Obama is going to lose in 2012 is because of how Obamacare was passed against the will of the people. I think about the Dems prancing past the protestors on the Hill, what a show of arrogance that was. Nancy Pelosi and her friends just added fuel to the fire and MADE SURE the Tea Party and friends would not forget. That kind of set the tone for the rest of Obama's term.

What should have been done was a solid, if not unspectacular, approach to health care reform that incorporated ideas from all sides. Not a giant "F-You" approach. Something could have been done that was an actual positive achievement form Obama...a real legacy instead of what we ended up with. The Republicans showed up ready to talk and were told there was no room at the Inn. This is not Obama's fault, but it reflected badly on him because the entire process seemed so corrupt.
Meanwhile, again in a failure to message well, Obama's staff went with "we are going to add 30 million people to the health care insurance rolls, people who cannot afford to pay for it, and doing this will save us billions of dollars." Seriously, that was the message. Sometimes I wonder if Obama even has PR people.
I think this law will either be struck down or repealed. When this happens I hope the GOP can, instead of taking an Obama-bashing victory lap, actually get together with the other side to solve the problem correctly this time. I won't hold my breath.

Obama did offer them a place at the table. The GOP's lone suggestion was capping malpractice awards.

In other words, screwing the little guy. Again.

 

[YankeeFan]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

But that's what employer-based insurance does. You all go into the same risk pool. But when 20-somethings opt out, then prices go up because the insurance companies realize that 20-somethings opt out.

This is actually the case with any insurance pool, YF, even in an absolutely free market economy with no government interference. Insurance companies know that people with hidden concerns opt in, and those without concerns opt out. Even if they seem exactly the same on the surface. It's a pure market failure and Exhibit A for government intervention into an otherwise free-market economy.

You won't like a lot of what it has to say, but this book has a pretty good chapter on adverse selection, which it calls "hidden costs" to make it more palatable for non-economists:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Markets-Fail-Economic-Calamities/dp/0374173206/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313249330&sr=1-1

 

[J Staley]

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it. I get the trepidation about overly regulated markets, but it seems to me that our current health care system is irreparably broken. So are we just supposed to wait for the innovators at insurance companies to fix this?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it.

Because of the complexity of society, there are market failures in which the government has to step in and correct. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not to be taken seriously. Even the staunchest serious conservative thinker would agree wholeheartedly.

 

[deskslave]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

I would have thought someone who likes to tout his business savvy would have understood what insurance actually does.

This is the same bone-headed logic that said I should get to invest my Social Security money, because it's "mine."

 

[deskslave]

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it. I get the trepidation about overly regulated markets, but it seems to me that our current health care system is irreparably broken. So are we just supposed to wait for the innovators at insurance companies to fix this?

As far as conservatives are concerned, it's not broken. The current system punishes the sick, the poor and the unfortunate. What's not for a conservative to love?

 

[NightHawk112005]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.