Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Sheldon]

The health insurance industry is unique and doesn't respond to supply and demand in all the same ways that other markets do.

You're right, the reason being is the consumer being so far removed from the product. There is no consumer driven incentive to lower costs. The bulk of Americans get insurance through their employer. The premiums get deducted from their paychecks and they barely give a second thought to what they are paying for premiums. Others are on Medicare or Medicaid which they pay nothing at all for.

Folks, supply and demand are LAWS of economics, not theories. It isn't that health insurance is immune to those laws. It means there are other variables in place preventing them from working as they hsould.

Sure I can shop around for my auto policy, but that policy still has to conform to my state's minimum coverage mandates. And of course homeowner's rates are geocentric, not always required if you fully own the house, and is just a whole different animal.

But I'll run with the comparison just for fun. Just like auto, each state already has their minimum coverage mandates--so making the purchase of health insurance like auto insurance wouldn't change much. What does it matter if I can buy a policy from here or from Alabama, if both of them have to conform to my state's minimum coverage requirements?

Right again? it wouldn't make any difference. So back up and ask yourself why the state is deciding what you have to purchase instead of you deciding what you WANT to purchase? Again it is part of the reason why supply and demand aren't working. The demand is not really coming from you. Demand is just another term for what the customer wants, but in health insurance and other types of insurance it isn't really you telling the market what you want. It's some government beauracrat telling what you need to have.

We could probably have a whole thread about what makes the health insurance industry unique from others.


As far as the bold part, one reason I've read from an industry insider was that having a few large insurers protected by state boundaries gives them market share that they can use as leverage when negotiating prices with the local hospitals. But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of a few large corporations being insulated like this, just pointing out a silver lining that could be affected by changes in state autonomy to regulate the industry.

If we look at what the political climate is like, I think that interstate insurance has bipartisan support at the Federal level. Even if this law gets repealed, I think the state compacts will live on in its replacement. How well those compacts affect pricing, we'll see.

In my state, there's one bill in each house that proposes forming compacts with other states. The two are different because one proposes the mandates would be from the provider's state (the GOP bill, which died), and the Democrat bill had it like auto insurance where the minimum coverage mandates of the purchaser's state apply. But that bill is on hold until the Federal law gets sorted out.

Ultimately I think the Federal law has created more problems and hassles than it's solved. I would like to see states take the initiative and make compacts or out-of-state laws with eachother instead of waiting on the Feds to do something, but I guess Federal funding comes into play.

But wish in one hand and crap in the other I guess.

 

[Bern80]

The health insurance industry is unique and doesn't respond to supply and demand in all the same ways that other markets do.

You're right, the reason being is the consumer being so far removed from the product. There is no consumer driven incentive to lower costs. The bulk of Americans get insurance through their employer. The premiums get deducted from their paychecks and they barely give a second thought to what they are paying for premiums. Others are on Medicare or Medicaid which they pay nothing at all for.

Folks, supply and demand are LAWS of economics, not theories. It isn't that health insurance is immune to those laws. It means there are other variables in place preventing them from working as they hsould.

Sure I can shop around for my auto policy, but that policy still has to conform to my state's minimum coverage mandates. And of course homeowner's rates are geocentric, not always required if you fully own the house, and is just a whole different animal.

But I'll run with the comparison just for fun. Just like auto, each state already has their minimum coverage mandates--so making the purchase of health insurance like auto insurance wouldn't change much. What does it matter if I can buy a policy from here or from Alabama, if both of them have to conform to my state's minimum coverage requirements?

Right again? it wouldn't make any difference. So back up and ask yourself why the state is deciding what you have to purchase instead of you deciding what you WANT to purchase? Again it is part of the reason why supply and demand aren't working. The demand is not really coming from you. Demand is just another term for what the customer wants, but in health insurance and other types of insurance it isn't really you telling the market what you want. It's some government beauracrat telling what you need to have.

We could probably have a whole thread about what makes the health insurance industry unique from others.


As far as the bold part, one reason I've read from an industry insider was that having a few large insurers protected by state boundaries gives them market share that they can use as leverage when negotiating prices with the local hospitals. But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of a few large corporations being insulated like this, just pointing out a silver lining that could be affected by changes in state autonomy to regulate the industry.

If we look at what the political climate is like, I think that interstate insurance has bipartisan support at the Federal level. Even if this law gets repealed, I think the state compacts will live on in its replacement. How well those compacts affect pricing, we'll see.

In my state, there's one bill in each house that proposes forming compacts with other states. The two are different because one proposes the mandates would be from the provider's state (the GOP bill, which died), and the Democrat bill had it like auto insurance where the minimum coverage mandates of the purchaser's state apply. But that bill is on hold until the Federal law gets sorted out.

Ultimately I think the Federal law has created more problems and hassles than it's solved. I would like to see states take the initiative and make compacts or out-of-state laws with eachother instead of waiting on the Feds to do something, but I guess Federal funding comes into play.

But wish in one hand and crap in the other I guess.

Why make some compact at all? This issue is indeed not just a federal government issue. It's a government issue in principle. The government involved, state and local, just feel they gotta control things for the benefit of the people. Not only do we the people have to appeal to the federal government to get rid of this. Even if we did the states would still have the right to regulate the sale of health insurance as they saw fit, as you mentioned. So the people need to make as much noise to their state legislators about getting out of the way as at the federal level.

 

[Flopper]

Is that really grounds for forcing the young to buy insurance today?

Immie

Yes. Is it constitutional? I have no idea and will not debate that.
From a practical standpoint, we need low risk policyholders otherwise premiums go through the roof and a large segment of the population cannot afford insurance. One might argue that it is unfair to force the young to buy insurance that they don’t feel they need. However, what happens when the young are no longer young and need that insurance. If current trends continue, they won’t be able to afford it.

When a person decides not to carry insurance they are not just putting themselves at risk but others. When people get sick with contagious diseases and can’t afford medical care they put us all at risk. Cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases can send ones medical costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hospitals and doctors don’t get paid. Home mortgages don’t get paid resulting in foreclosures. These costs are then pass own to all of us.

In my humble opinion, that is still not a reason for forcing the young (or anyone for that matter) to take insurance. I believe that most reasonable people will choose to be insured even at a young age especially if the premiums are not exorbitant. I do not agree with you in that the government should force those who choose not to be insured to do so.

Immie

I agree most young people, (18-30) will carry insurance with or without the mandate, for several reasons. If you wait till you have a serious health problem to buy insurance, you're taking a big risk. If you're diagnosed with cancer or have an accident, are you going to delay medical treatment for possibly several months till you are enrolled in an insurance plan? Also lower cost policies will be available with higher copays and deductibles. Most of the 18-26 group will be on their parents policy. Those that can't afford insurance will receive government assistance. The mandate will be needed to keep a relative small percent of the people from trying to beat the system.

 

[Flopper]

so basically, you want to nationalize all medical professions, have them be government employees, paid for by a new tax system

Of course not. I just want to see everyone covered by health insurance. Under the current law that insurance is primarily non-government insurance and is certainly likely to stay so. A small percent of the doctors and hospitals are government run, primarily VA, and there is nothing in law that changes that. The law simply mandates everyone carry insurance and insurance companies can't refuse people.

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate. I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%. Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage. Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder. Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured. I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course not. I just want to see everyone covered by health insurance. Under the current law that insurance is primarily non-government insurance and is certainly likely to stay so. A small percent of the doctors and hospitals are government run, primarily VA, and there is nothing in law that changes that. The law simply mandates everyone carry insurance and insurance companies can't refuse people.

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate. I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%. Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage. Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder. Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured. I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.

The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written. Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest? I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation. And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.

 

[TominNH]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

"Responsible" as defined by you.

Take it up with the judge.

Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate. In fact, it hasnt even been challenged and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....

 

[boedicca]

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

"Responsible" as defined by you.

Take it up with the judge.

Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate. In fact, it hasnt even been challenged and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....

Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

"Responsible" as defined by you.

Take it up with the judge.

Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate. In fact, it hasnt even been challenged and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....

I'm not positive since I haven't looked at Romneycare in awhile, but I don't believe there was a mandate or you'll get fined for the individuals in that. The State of Massachusetts gives a $219 (? I'm working from memory here) tax credit or exemption for folks who have healthcare insurance. Under Romneycare, those who do not have health insurance lose that $219 credit or exemption. That isn't the same thing as a fine. That is simply declaring that a person did not qualify for a tax break.

I am lobbying for the federal govenrment to get out of healthcare all together except for our Veterans. But if the federal government is going to be involved, a tax credit to help people buy insurance is something I can easily live with. But certainly those who do not buy insurance should not be entitled to the credit.

 

[TominNH]

"Responsible" as defined by you.

Take it up with the judge.

Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate. In fact, it hasnt even been challenged and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....

Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

 

[Flopper]

You're right, the reason being is the consumer being so far removed from the product. There is no consumer driven incentive to lower costs. The bulk of Americans get insurance through their employer. The premiums get deducted from their paychecks and they barely give a second thought to what they are paying for premiums. Others are on Medicare or Medicaid which they pay nothing at all for.

Folks, supply and demand are LAWS of economics, not theories. It isn't that health insurance is immune to those laws. It means there are other variables in place preventing them from working as they hsould.



Right again? it wouldn't make any difference. So back up and ask yourself why the state is deciding what you have to purchase instead of you deciding what you WANT to purchase? Again it is part of the reason why supply and demand aren't working. The demand is not really coming from you. Demand is just another term for what the customer wants, but in health insurance and other types of insurance it isn't really you telling the market what you want. It's some government beauracrat telling what you need to have.

We could probably have a whole thread about what makes the health insurance industry unique from others.


As far as the bold part, one reason I've read from an industry insider was that having a few large insurers protected by state boundaries gives them market share that they can use as leverage when negotiating prices with the local hospitals. But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of a few large corporations being insulated like this, just pointing out a silver lining that could be affected by changes in state autonomy to regulate the industry.

If we look at what the political climate is like, I think that interstate insurance has bipartisan support at the Federal level. Even if this law gets repealed, I think the state compacts will live on in its replacement. How well those compacts affect pricing, we'll see.

In my state, there's one bill in each house that proposes forming compacts with other states. The two are different because one proposes the mandates would be from the provider's state (the GOP bill, which died), and the Democrat bill had it like auto insurance where the minimum coverage mandates of the purchaser's state apply. But that bill is on hold until the Federal law gets sorted out.

Ultimately I think the Federal law has created more problems and hassles than it's solved. I would like to see states take the initiative and make compacts or out-of-state laws with eachother instead of waiting on the Feds to do something, but I guess Federal funding comes into play.

But wish in one hand and crap in the other I guess.

Why make some compact at all? This issue is indeed not just a federal government issue. It's a government issue in principle. The government involved, state and local, just feel they gotta control things for the benefit of the people. Not only do we the people have to appeal to the federal government to get rid of this. Even if we did the states would still have the right to regulate the sale of health insurance as they saw fit, as you mentioned. So the people need to make as much noise to their state legislators about getting out of the way as at the federal level.

Possibly the compact is a good idea. We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state. I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana. He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems. It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches. Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.

 

[jillian]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

"Responsible" as defined by you.

Take it up with the judge.

no. responsible as defined by normal people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate. In fact, it hasnt even been challenged and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....

Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

No. She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.

 

[jillian]

Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

No. She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.

states can't violate the federal constitution. they can give greater rights than the feds, but not less.

 

[boedicca]

Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate. In fact, it hasnt even been challenged and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....

Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

States are able to do things under the Constitution which are not enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

Whether or not RomneyCare is Constitutional is debatable, but if it is unconstitutional, it's not for the same reason as is ObamaCare.

 

[Ravi]

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

No. She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.

states can't violate the federal constitution. they can give greater rights than the feds, but not less.

Yep, a point I've tried to make several times...and look who agrees:

"The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much," Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO) | TPMDC

 

[jillian]

No. She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.

states can't violate the federal constitution. they can give greater rights than the feds, but not less.

Yep, a point I've tried to make several times...and look who agrees:

"The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much," Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO) | TPMDC

the body of caselaw on the new deal legislation is pretty clear. this doesn't really deviate. and the same loons who hate the new deal legislation, hate this.

doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

and yet, the loons don't get it.

 

[Ravi]

states can't violate the federal constitution. they can give greater rights than the feds, but not less.

Yep, a point I've tried to make several times...and look who agrees:

"The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much," Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO) | TPMDC

the body of caselaw on the new deal legislation is pretty clear. this doesn't really deviate. and the same loons who hate the new deal legislation, hate this.

doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

and yet, the loons don't get it.

They just need activist judges...sigh.

 

[Flopper]

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate. I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%. Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage. Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder. Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured. I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.

The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written. Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest? I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation. And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.

I have always felt that the healthcare law is going to be revised regardless of what the Supreme Court says. The Democrats new that the day it passed. The cost savings in the law which are suppose to exceed the cost increase are based on estimates whose accuracy can't be determined until the law is implemented. For example, most of the cost savings comes from increasing the utilization of medial facilities, reduction in loses due to unpaid medical bills, and reduction in overhead of the insurance companies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!

No. She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.

states can't violate the federal constitution. they can give greater rights than the feds, but not less.

I didn't say that states could violate the federal constitution. But the fact remains that states cannot do some things--say print money or declare war for example--that the feds can constitutionally do. But the states can do things for which there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to do. That was in fact the principle that the Tenth Amendment is based on.

 

[SFC Ollie]

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate. I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%. Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage. Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder. Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured. I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.

The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written. Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest? I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation. And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.

Come on Foxy, stay up to date.

"As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011"

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov