Healthcare law in jeopardy

[Danaelle]

Judge strikes down key part of health care law

Judge strikes down key part of health care law - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

Hudson declared that the law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or other provisions. He denied requests to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the administration.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause," said Hudson, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush.

Well, by God its about time for something like this! Next though, I want to see someone go against making people buy car insurance, though I dont think that will win simply because they will argue that the law only says you have to buy car insurance if you want to operate a vehicle, and that every American has a choice of not to operate a vehicle if they dont want to buy insurance.

However, I do also want to see something about seatbelts n stuff, IMO that is unconstitutional too!

But I have said since they passed that healthcare law:

Just TRY to force me to buy health insurance. I dare ya!

 

[Political Junky]

The GOP's self-destructive jihad against healthcare reform - How the World Works - Salon.com
<excerpt>
So a Virginia District Court judge appointed by George W. Bush and part-owner of a Republican consulting company that worked to oppose health care reform has ruled that a key section of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. This is neither a surprise to anyone who has been following the GOP's legal assault against reform nor is it anything close to a deathblow.

Judge Henry Hudson specifically ruled that the "individual mandate" requiring Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." But he did not grant a stay halting implementation of the law, and he did not, as some crusaders against reform had hoped, throw out the entire law altogether. There is no questioning that the "individual mandate" is a critical piece of the package -- without it, it would be much more difficult to keep costs down overall. You need as many healthy Americans as possible buying insurance in order to make the economics work for significantly expanded coverage. But two other district court judges (both Clinton appointees) have already upheld the law against similar challenges, and the end game, as everyone has known from the beginning, will be the Supreme Court. <more>

 

[Avatar4321]

The giant thread on this wasnt enough?

 

[Danaelle]

I think the two most critical pieces of that article are this:

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision).... The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do... Hudson pointedly refused.

and this:

Conservatives, either from confusion, or for the sheer fun of taking a political bite out of Democrats, are fighting the one measure that's essential if private insurance is to retain its central role in American health care ... [But] be careful what you wish for. By fighting the mandate needed to make private insurance solutions work, and doing nothing to ease the health cost burden on everyday Americans, you'll hasten the day when the public throws up its hands and says, "Just give us single-payer and price controls." Don't think the anti-government wave this fall won't reverse itself on health care if the most private sector-oriented health care system on earth keeps delivering the world's costliest, most inefficient care.

I have ALWAYS been for a single payer system and AGAINST a mandatory purchase law simply because it IS unconstitutional

 

[Danaelle]

The giant thread on this wasnt enough?

I looked on the first page, didnt see it and posted my own.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have ALWAYS been for a single payer system and AGAINST a mandatory purchase law simply because it IS unconstitutional

While I disagree with you, if the opinion of this judge on the individual mandate stands, you'll be in some luck. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that would actually make H.R. 676 politically viable in the near future.

Though I would note, as I did in the other thread, that the vast majority of the reform law was upheld in today's decision.

 

[Danaelle]

I have ALWAYS been for a single payer system and AGAINST a mandatory purchase law simply because it IS unconstitutional

While I disagree with you, if the opinion of this judge on the individual mandate stands, you'll be in some luck. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that would actually make H.R. 676 politically viable in the near future.

Though I would note, as I did in the other thread, that the vast majority of the reform law was upheld in today's decision.

Dont get me wrong, I have been a supporter of healthcare reform, but the mandatory purchase has always been something that sticks in the back of my throat and I didnt feel that the bill which was passed did enough to help everyday Americans. As far as the other thread it was moved and that buried it to page 2. I will now go to check out that thread

 

[Greenbeard]

That (the individual mandate) was indeed the one provision that unified the left and the right in their contempt for it.

 

[Flopper]

I have ALWAYS been for a single payer system and AGAINST a mandatory purchase law simply because it IS unconstitutional

While I disagree with you, if the opinion of this judge on the individual mandate stands, you'll be in some luck. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that would actually make H.R. 676 politically viable in the near future.

Though I would note, as I did in the other thread, that the vast majority of the reform law was upheld in today's decision.

Dont get me wrong, I have been a supporter of healthcare reform, but the mandatory purchase has always been something that sticks in the back of my throat and I didnt feel that the bill which was passed did enough to help everyday Americans. As far as the other thread it was moved and that buried it to page 2. I will now go to check out that thread

To have affordable health insurance, you need a large pool that contains both healthy low risk customers as well as the high risk customers. If you don't have the low risk customers in the pool, health insurance is no longer insurance but rather a very expensive health savings program. If the younger lower risk customers are allowed to turn down health insurance, the costs will rise forcing more people to opt out of the system pushing cost even higher. And what happens if they become seriously ill, they hit the free clinics, emergency rooms, and eventually Medicaid and the rest of us get to pay the bill.

If anyone turns down health insurance they should not have access to any free medical services.

 

[asterism]

While I disagree with you, if the opinion of this judge on the individual mandate stands, you'll be in some luck. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that would actually make H.R. 676 politically viable in the near future.

Though I would note, as I did in the other thread, that the vast majority of the reform law was upheld in today's decision.

Dont get me wrong, I have been a supporter of healthcare reform, but the mandatory purchase has always been something that sticks in the back of my throat and I didnt feel that the bill which was passed did enough to help everyday Americans. As far as the other thread it was moved and that buried it to page 2. I will now go to check out that thread

To have affordable health insurance, you need a large pool that contains both healthy low risk customers as well as the high risk customers. If you don't have the low risk customers in the pool, health insurance is no longer insurance but rather a very expensive health savings program. If the younger lower risk customers are allowed to turn down health insurance, the costs will rise forcing more people to opt out of the system pushing cost even higher. And what happens if they become seriously ill, they hit the free clinics, emergency rooms, and eventually Medicaid and the rest of us get to pay the bill.

If anyone turns down health insurance they should not have access to any free medical services.

On that I agree. You want it, sign up and pay for it. You don't want to sign up and pay for it? You don't get it.

 

[Danaelle]

While I disagree with you, if the opinion of this judge on the individual mandate stands, you'll be in some luck. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that would actually make H.R. 676 politically viable in the near future.

Though I would note, as I did in the other thread, that the vast majority of the reform law was upheld in today's decision.

Dont get me wrong, I have been a supporter of healthcare reform, but the mandatory purchase has always been something that sticks in the back of my throat and I didnt feel that the bill which was passed did enough to help everyday Americans. As far as the other thread it was moved and that buried it to page 2. I will now go to check out that thread

To have affordable health insurance, you need a large pool that contains both healthy low risk customers as well as the high risk customers. If you don't have the low risk customers in the pool, health insurance is no longer insurance but rather a very expensive health savings program. If the younger lower risk customers are allowed to turn down health insurance, the costs will rise forcing more people to opt out of the system pushing cost even higher. And what happens if they become seriously ill, they hit the free clinics, emergency rooms, and eventually Medicaid and the rest of us get to pay the bill.

If anyone turns down health insurance they should not have access to any free medical services.

Your assessment has a lot of merit IMO, and I cant find anything wrong with it. If it were the only dynamic involved, we wouldnt have the problems we have in healthcare today. However, unfortunately there are other dynamics to consider.

Insurance companies these days are making massive profits because they are taking high premium payments from customers for years and years, high because they are deemed "at risk" or "high risk" customers and then finding loopholes that allow them to not cover that high risk person when they finally need to be hospitalized.

For instance, they have no problem with insuring a 45 year old male who has been a smoker for years, at triple the premium another person may pay, then when that person ends up in a hospital, if it can be determined that what that person is in the hospital for has anything remotely to do with their smoking, they can find ways to not pay.

And that is just a basic example. There are many more, and stories abound about people who have been kicked off of plans because of existing conditions and whatnot, despite having paid tens of thousands of dollars in premiums over the years. This is just wrong. Figure out a way to stop these kinds of things from happening and I will withdraw my support for universal healthcare.

 

[Danaelle]

Howard Dean says it best right here:

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann