If the Court Overturns Obamacare then What?

[Liability]

Obama Care has no severability clause contained in it. Which means if any part of Obama Care is ruled Unconstitutional, then the entire Law becomes Unconstitutional

the justices have the option to declare only a part or parts of the law unconstitutional. it does not required a severability clause, otherwise every law would need to be written with such a clause in order for all laws to pass the courts instead of sections of laws.

That is not what the lack of a severablility clause means, necessarily. Unfortunately.

But we can still hope for the best!

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama Care has no severability clause contained in it. Which means if any part of Obama Care is ruled Unconstitutional, then the entire Law becomes Unconstitutional

the justices have the option to declare only a part or parts of the law unconstitutional. it does not required a severability clause, otherwise every law would need to be written with such a clause in order for all laws to pass the courts instead of sections of laws.

That is not what the lack of a severablility clause means, necessarily. Unfortunately.

But we can still hope for the best!

No that is what it means. Most legislation has it. This time the Dums left it out hoping to put pressure on someone (I cant remember the reasoning). Now it might backfire. Like the rest of this POS.

 

[Flopper]

We will go back to a system that 97% of the people were perfectly satisfied with.

How quickly we forget.

In a 2008 CBS poll, 54% of respondents said US healthcare needs major changes. 36% said it needs to be rebuilt.

A Pew Research Center poll issued in June 2009 found that "most Americans believe that the nation’s health care system is in need of substantial changes."

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in October 2003, 62% of respondents preferred "a universal health insurance program, in which everybody is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers," compared to 32% who preferred the current system,

A 2008 survey of over two thousand doctors published in Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that physicians support universal health care and national health insurance by almost 2 to 1.

These figures are before 5 million more people lost their health insurance in the recession.

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poll: The Politics Of Health Care - CBS News

 

[The Rabbi]

Remnd me how popular Obamacare was after it passed, and then after 1year and then 2 years.
"Reform" means lots of different things to different people. But I think most people did nto have higher premiums and less choice in mind when they voted for reform.

 

[Flopper]

The only way to bring down the cost of health care is to put more of the cost burden on the consumer, not less.

I'm not sure about that.

I am.

My son's family health insurance plan has a thousand dollar deductible and rather high copays. Like many families they're struggling and skipping medical treatment for some minor problems that have the potential of becoming very big problems because they don't have the money.

Until the majority cost burden is hitting consumers across the board the price will NEVER go down without sacrificing the quality of care. There are no market forces in the health care industry to drive down prices because just about every one of us is paying through a third party. You don't care if your monthly meds are costing $200 a month if you're only paying a $5 co pay. Insurance companies or the government are footing the bill in most cases and so service providers keep charging more and more. If you had to pay for most of your general services then you could shop around for the least expensive doctor and treatments.

Insurance should be reserved for exactly that, insurance. It should be there to cover catastrophic medical issues, not every sniffle, sneeze, and scraped knee. Health care was never this expensive a couple generations ago when you still had doctors making house calls and people writing checks to pay for the delivery of their child. Government meddling in the market via Medicare and Medicaid and 85% of working Americans having health care plans, rather than true insurance, is what has artificially driven up the costs.

Placing more of the healthcare cost on the family encourages people to bypass low cost healthcare procedures and preventive services and chance serious healthcare problems with much higher costs.

Based on what evidence?

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise — Not Cut — Costs - ABC News

The idea that people will spend hours getting to see a doctor so they can be poked, prodded, injected, and subjected to all manner of test just because it's cheap is truly ludicrous.

 

[Liability]

the justices have the option to declare only a part or parts of the law unconstitutional. it does not required a severability clause, otherwise every law would need to be written with such a clause in order for all laws to pass the courts instead of sections of laws.

That is not what the lack of a severablility clause means, necessarily. Unfortunately.

But we can still hope for the best!

No that is what it means. Most legislation has it. This time the Dums left it out hoping to put pressure on someone (I cant remember the reasoning). Now it might backfire. Like the rest of this POS.

No. It's still not what it means. That MIGHT have been part of the intent. But it still doesn't mean that the thing all goes boom if the mandate gets squished.

But it does make it easier to get rid of it lock, stock and barrel in the event the mandate part gets tossed.

Technically, though, a severability clause is not absolutely necessary for a Court to preserve the portions of an act that aren't in violation of the Constitution.

 

[MarcATL]

We will go back to a system that 97% of the people were perfectly satisfied with.

How quickly we forget.

In a 2008 CBS poll, 54% of respondents said US healthcare needs major changes. 36% said it needs to be rebuilt.

A Pew Research Center poll issued in June 2009 found that "most Americans believe that the nation’s health care system is in need of substantial changes."

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in October 2003, 62% of respondents preferred "a universal health insurance program, in which everybody is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers," compared to 32% who preferred the current system,

A 2008 survey of over two thousand doctors published in Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that physicians support universal health care and national health insurance by almost 2 to 1.

These figures are before 5 million more people lost their health insurance in the recession.

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poll: The Politics Of Health Care - CBS News

Only thing is...they didn't forget. They always lied. They lied about it then. They're lying about it now. And they'll continue to lie about it tomorrow.

 

[Flopper]

Opponents of the law say it would be fine to turn back the clock and start from scratch. In fact, in our polarized political climate, a do-over is unimaginable. What’s more, the law contains many specific provisions that would be painful to lose.

The big elements are obvious: Without the law, insurance companies could keep turning away people with pre-existing conditions or charging them higher premiums. They could maintain annual caps and restore lifetime caps on how much they spend on care for an individual policyholder. They could stop paying the full cost of preventive services such as mammograms, flu shots and well-child visits. And young adults would no longer be guaranteed coverage on their parents’ plan until age 26.

We couldn't look forward to state insurance exchanges, those competitive online marketplaces where, starting in 2014, people without coverage from employers should be able to buy health insurance using federal subsidies. And, with no subsidies and no expansion of Medicaid, we’d give up on the promise of insuring 32 million more Americans.

Many less-often-discussed pieces of the 2,000-page law are valuable as well. Consider the “medical loss ratio” -- the requirement that for every dollar insurance companies collect in premiums, they spend no more than 15 cents to 20 cents on administration and profits. The rest has to go toward medical claims. Before the law, insurance companies often spent 25 percent to 30 percent of the money on administrative costs and profits.

Think, too, of the law’s charge to the Food and Drug Administration to arrange for speedy approval of “biosimilars” - - cheaper versions of expensive, complex drugs derived from living organisms, including vaccines and gene therapies, that are used to treat conditions from arthritis to cancer. Biosimilars are needed to bring down the exorbitant cost of using biologic drugs. A three-month course of the melanoma treatment Yervoy, for example, a biologic made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., costs $120,000. Last month, the FDA released its draft guidance, suggesting that makers of biosimilars could in some cases save the time and expense of human trials.

Without the law, other opportunities to improve care while saving money would be lost as well. Under the law, Medicare payments to hospitals are to be reduced if too many of their patients contract infections while they’re in the hospital or if too many of them, after their release from care, are quickly readmitted.

Another chunk of Medicare savings written into the law is a gradual elimination of the extra payments to private insurance companies for Medicare Advantage policies. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates that, in 2011, payments to Medicare Advantage per beneficiary were 10 percent higher than those for traditional Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ending these overpayments stands to save Medicare about $136 billion over 10 years.

The law also provides for curtailing increases in other Medicare spending over 10 years, so that, all things considered, it saves the program almost $500 billion.

Finally, we would hate to give up the law’s push to improve basic medical treatment. Over 10 years, $3 billion is set to be spent on an independent, nonprofit organization called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which will support studies assessing the benefits and drawbacks of medical treatments and diagnostic tests. The idea is to give doctors, hospitals and insurers the information they need to make more informed and less wasteful decisions about the care they give.

This is only a sampling of ways in which the law is already making progress toward mending and strengthening the health-care system. It’s not perfect, of course; nothing with so many facets could be. We don’t yet know, for example, whether the law’s incentives to move doctors and hospitals away from a fee-for- service system to one more focused on efficiency will work.

Just helping Americans to understand what’s changing in the health- care system is a challenge that remains unmet. But the law takes a great many small steps in the right direction -- toward a health-care system that provides good- quality care at a reasonable price for the largest possible number of people.

All Americans Lose If Health-Care Law Is Overturned - Bloomberg

PRETTY DAMN SIMPLE!

90% of physicans say they bill $1. of every $4 purely out of fear of lawsuits...
$600 billion a year DEFENSIVE MEDICINE!
Duplicate TESTS! Specialist referrals... 2nd, 3rd opinions ALL because they are afraid of BEING SUED! Afraid of having to take time off to appear in court! Take time to appear before boards.. ALL totally non productive costly time ALL adding to $600 billion in DEFENSIVE MEDICINE AND not just the minute costs of malpractice insurance which many opponents of TORT reform THINK is the reason!
Nine out of 10 physicians reported practicing defensive medicine.
Doctors Estimate Defensive Medicine Costs Americans $650-850 Billion Annually
Doctors Practice Medicine in Fear, New Study Finds

Why defensive medicine ...
If 1,231 physicians...(90%) Ninety percent of physicians surveyed said
"doctors overtest and overtreat to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits.
"Defensive medicine is when doctors order multiple tests, MRIs and other procedures, not because the patient needs them, but to protect against litigation based on allegations that something should have been done but wasn’t. according to the survey published Monday in Archives of Internal Medicine.


THEN we have Medicare GLADLY paying 6,000% EXCESSIVE OVERCHARGES from
hospitals that take "uninsured" patients all because of the 1986 EMTALA !

SO SOLUTION is TAX the lawyers 10% of their $100 billion a year!
Use that to pay for the truly 8 million "UNINSURED!

As a result nearly $100 billion EASILY between LOWERED Medicare charges and Lowering the $600 billion in Defensive Medicine!

Hospitals bill directly the govt run Uninsured Health Insurance Company©!
UHIC© using the $10 billion in taxes from the 10% lawyers pay the claims from Hospitals and physicians won't be sending "fear of lawsuit.. Defensive Medicine" charges and Medicare won't be paying "padding and passed" hospital claims!

Tort reform will not significantly reduce healthcare cost not unless you consider .8% a significant savings.

CBO now (2009) estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that [tort reform]... would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services."

The state of Florida legislation on tort reform has been studied rather extensive. Costs savings are less than 3%.

Would medical malpractice reform (tort reform) significantly reduce the cost of health care? - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

 

[Flopper]

Obama thinks the mandate is unnecessary, and he's right.

Loss of insurance requirement would complicate, but not kill Obama's health care overhaul

This horse race, controversy above all media coverage SUCKS. I see all the dupes are into it.

This can be just as good as single payer, and we won't have to wait 20 years AGAIN. JFC!!

If the court shot down the whole law, healthcare would then become a big issue in the election. For several million people that stand to lose their insurance and 30 million uninsured that won't have insurance, it will be a very big issue, one that both candidates would have to address.

 

[Flopper]

Remnd me how popular Obamacare was after it passed, and then after 1year and then 2 years.
"Reform" means lots of different things to different people. But I think most people did nto have higher premiums and less choice in mind when they voted for reform.

You said 97% of the people were perfectly satisfied with the system. You're dead wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

The Supreme Court, unbound by any court above it, unfastened by the vagueness of constitutional text, and uninhibited by the gift of life tenure, operates like a freewheeling political "veto council" and not like any court that we would recognize as doing judicial work.

 

[yidnar]

Opponents of the law say it would be fine to turn back the clock and start from scratch. In fact, in our polarized political climate, a do-over is unimaginable. What’s more, the law contains many specific provisions that would be painful to lose.

The big elements are obvious: Without the law, insurance companies could keep turning away people with pre-existing conditions or charging them higher premiums. They could maintain annual caps and restore lifetime caps on how much they spend on care for an individual policyholder. They could stop paying the full cost of preventive services such as mammograms, flu shots and well-child visits. And young adults would no longer be guaranteed coverage on their parents’ plan until age 26.

We couldn't look forward to state insurance exchanges, those competitive online marketplaces where, starting in 2014, people without coverage from employers should be able to buy health insurance using federal subsidies. And, with no subsidies and no expansion of Medicaid, we’d give up on the promise of insuring 32 million more Americans.

Many less-often-discussed pieces of the 2,000-page law are valuable as well. Consider the “medical loss ratio” -- the requirement that for every dollar insurance companies collect in premiums, they spend no more than 15 cents to 20 cents on administration and profits. The rest has to go toward medical claims. Before the law, insurance companies often spent 25 percent to 30 percent of the money on administrative costs and profits.

Think, too, of the law’s charge to the Food and Drug Administration to arrange for speedy approval of “biosimilars” - - cheaper versions of expensive, complex drugs derived from living organisms, including vaccines and gene therapies, that are used to treat conditions from arthritis to cancer. Biosimilars are needed to bring down the exorbitant cost of using biologic drugs. A three-month course of the melanoma treatment Yervoy, for example, a biologic made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., costs $120,000. Last month, the FDA released its draft guidance, suggesting that makers of biosimilars could in some cases save the time and expense of human trials.

Without the law, other opportunities to improve care while saving money would be lost as well. Under the law, Medicare payments to hospitals are to be reduced if too many of their patients contract infections while they’re in the hospital or if too many of them, after their release from care, are quickly readmitted.

Another chunk of Medicare savings written into the law is a gradual elimination of the extra payments to private insurance companies for Medicare Advantage policies. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates that, in 2011, payments to Medicare Advantage per beneficiary were 10 percent higher than those for traditional Medicare. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ending these overpayments stands to save Medicare about $136 billion over 10 years.

The law also provides for curtailing increases in other Medicare spending over 10 years, so that, all things considered, it saves the program almost $500 billion.

Finally, we would hate to give up the law’s push to improve basic medical treatment. Over 10 years, $3 billion is set to be spent on an independent, nonprofit organization called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which will support studies assessing the benefits and drawbacks of medical treatments and diagnostic tests. The idea is to give doctors, hospitals and insurers the information they need to make more informed and less wasteful decisions about the care they give.

This is only a sampling of ways in which the law is already making progress toward mending and strengthening the health-care system. It’s not perfect, of course; nothing with so many facets could be. We don’t yet know, for example, whether the law’s incentives to move doctors and hospitals away from a fee-for- service system to one more focused on efficiency will work.

Just helping Americans to understand what’s changing in the health- care system is a challenge that remains unmet. But the law takes a great many small steps in the right direction -- toward a health-care system that provides good- quality care at a reasonable price for the largest possible number of people.

All Americans Lose If Health-Care Law Is Overturned - Bloomberg

without this ax hanging over business the economy will improve !!

 

[Liability]

The Supreme Court, unbound by any court above it, unfastened by the vagueness of constitutional text, and uninhibited by the gift of life tenure, operates like a freewheeling political "veto council" and not like any court that we would recognize as doing judicial work.

Bullshit.

When they IGNORE the plain meaning of the Constitution to advance some liberal agenda, you idiots praise them.

But when they inhibit the passage of "laws" that plainly violate the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, you idiots deny that they are honoring the very duty they are most obliged to perform.

Sillybozo, you are essentially just a lying partisan hack.

 

[Katzndogz]

Socialism has just gone too far in promoting the dictatorship necessary to estabish socialism. The court is not willing to cross this particular mountain.

 

[Liability]

It is now a much more imaginable thing: ObamaCare is going down like a cheap whore.

That's the good news, feel good news of the hour.

If they strike the mandate, the next big question is whether they will attempt to salvage PARTs of ObamaCare nonetheless. The good news there is: that too is seeming less and less likely.

I mean, why the hell should they try to pick out of that 2000 plus page cluster-fuck the parts that are not dependent on the "mandate?" And if they don't do that, then they will surely find it simpler, more expedient and entirely justifiable to just chuck out the ENTIRE Act.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the Court Overturns Obamacare then What?

I, for one, will

 

[Flopper]

Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines will have the same effect as allowing credit card companies to do business across state lines did. They will all relocate to the state with the loosest regs and the other states will have no say in the matter.

What state has the loosest regulations, and what regulations is that state missing that is making you upset?

That's not how it works in the Insurance Industry.

The State of Florida doesn't care one bit where your home office is, you either meet Florida's guidelines or you don't sell insurance in the State of Florida. Period.

Allowing Insurance Companies to sell across State Lines is a Red Herring.

The reason a lot of Insurance Companies don't sell Insurance in...say... New Yawk is because they don't want to. Getting approved is not big deal. Not that tough. The Company just doesn't wanna deal with all the fraud and the criminality in New Yawk. Much of it in the New Yawk Insurance Superintendent's Office.

Another thing -- Most Insurance Policies, (in the case of Health Insurance -- ALL) are area rated.

If you don't like your Car Policy and you live in New Yawk City, you can't drive to Albany and save $1,000. That's not the way it works. The rates are based on where you live.

Health Insurance is dependent on a lot of things unique to the area in which you live. Cost of Hospital beds, usual and customary doctors fees, etc, etc

I agree insurance across state lines is a red herring but for different reasons. First states have always had the right to negotiate with other states to standardize their insurance laws and many have. Secondly, Obamacare includes a healthcare choice compact provision, which encourages states to do. The legislation passed by the Republican House to repeal Obamacare contains a similar provision.

The bottom line is that it is up to each state to change their insurance laws and regulations to encourage out of state insurers to do business in their state. There is little the federal government can do to change this. For Republicans to make this a major part of there national healthcare plan is laughable.

FAQ: Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines - Kaiser Health News

Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Won't Work - The Daily Beast

 

[Flopper]

It is now a much more imaginable thing: ObamaCare is going down like a cheap whore.

That's the good news, feel good news of the hour.

If they strike the mandate, the next big question is whether they will attempt to salvage PARTs of ObamaCare nonetheless. The good news there is: that too is seeming less and less likely.

I mean, why the hell should they try to pick out of that 2000 plus page cluster-fuck the parts that are not dependent on the "mandate?" And if they don't do that, then they will surely find it simpler, more expedient and entirely justifiable to just chuck out the ENTIRE Act.

Without the mandate, administration officials say, it would be unreasonable to expect health insurers to cover the sickest Americans if the healthiest ones are not required to pay for coverage. If the pool of the insured was composed disproportionately of the sick, insurance costs could soar.

But the White House says an array of other provisions in the law could stand. They include a vast expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of health insurance exchanges, offering subsidized coverage to those with low incomes, both scheduled to start in 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/us/justices-ask-if-health-law-is-viable-without-mandate.html

If the mandate is overturned, exclusion due to preexisting conditions and cancellation of policy because of illness will surely return as will future legislation to rectify the situation. Several years ago Obama said that the healthcare law was just a first step in insuring that every American, regardless of their financial situation will have access to needed healthcare.

 

[usmcstinger]

Obama Care has no severability clause contained in it. Which means if any part of Obama Care is ruled Unconstitutional, then the entire Law becomes Unconstitutional

the justices have the option to declare only a part or parts of the law unconstitutional. it does not required a severability clause, otherwise every law would need to be written with such a clause in order for all laws to pass the courts instead of sections of laws.

Use the link below to educate yourself instead of making a fool of yourself.
http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v16n1/Klukowski.pdf