It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[JakeStarkey]

I'm still waiting for people to show how the law is constitutional, …

It's constitutional until SCOTUS opines that it is not.

Uhh... that's some ass backwards logic. Anyways I asked for YOU to show where it was constitutional, not the SC. I'm pretty sure the SC will find it unconstitutional.

Averysuds is backwards. SCOTUS will so opine one way or another. It may find the mandate unconstitutional. The four hard core right want to find it unconstitutional completely, I suspect Kennedy will vote to uphold it except for the mandate, which the other four liberals will uphold.,

 

[Meister]

From the audio I've heard, what I've read? Even the more supposed liberal judges had some serious questions for Obama's team that they came up short on...

I think it's a safe bet the 'Requirement' [mandate] to have Insurance will be struck down. And if that goes? The engine of ObamaCare is killed and can't operate.

I don't think the whole thing will be gutted...I wish it would, but if it's not we can expect premiums to rise quite a bit due to things like keep the children on until their 26, pre existing conditions, and pre emptive testing

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taking out the mandate is a minor thing and easily repaired by Congress.

 

[JoeB131]

From the audio I've heard, what I've read? Even the more supposed liberal judges had some serious questions for Obama's team that they came up short on...

I think it's a safe bet the 'Requirement' [mandate] to have Insurance will be struck down. And if that goes? The engine of ObamaCare is killed and can't operate.

I don't think the whole thing will be gutted...I wish it would, but if it's not we can expect premiums to rise quite a bit due to things like keep the children on until their 26, pre existing conditions, and pre emptive testing

I think you hit on the important thing.

I don't think the keeping kids on their parents insurance until they are 26 is that big of a deal, because 26 year olds aren't usually unhealthy anyway. In the time period when I was between 18 and 26 I doubt I visted a doctor more than six times, usually in a clinic.

The ending pre-existing conditions, though, would probably be a disaster, because its like letting people buy car insurance after they've had an accident. Now, it was invoked for a damned good reason, to keep insurance companies from practicing the very nasty policy of going through your medical records, and declaring your acne from when you were 20-something was a "pre-existing condition" and they didn't have to pay for your breast cancer treatment in your forties.

I go back to my original point, though, which a lot of you so-called "conservatives" (as if that word has any meaning at this point) had no problem with individual mandates in the 1990's when the Heritage Foundation proposed them as an alternative to HillaryCare. You had no problem with them when Mitt Romney imposed them on the State of Massachusetts, and called it a model for the nation as late as 2009, until he went back and edited his book when he found out that the Tea Partiers hated any kind of government medicine.

Now that Obama actually did it, and you guys hate Obama so much, you go running to the courts to do what you couldn't accomplish in Congress. (Funny, where were those conservative complaints about 'judicial activism' again?) And if you happen to accidently wreck the private insurance industry in the process, so be it.

 

[JoeB131]

Taking out the mandate is a minor thing and easily repaired by Congress.

Seriously?

Is this the marching orders you got from Mitt Central?

Is this the latest attempt to thread the "I was for Mandates before I was against them" needle?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of my fellow supporters fool themselves thinking that eliminating the mandate will gut the program.

You know it won't and I know it won't, because it requires a simple fix in Congress: call a tax a tax.

 

[JoeB131]

Some of my fellow supporters fool themselves thinking that eliminating the mandate will gut the program.

You know it won't and I know it won't, because it requires a simple fix in Congress: call a tax a tax.

Actually, I know nothing of the sort.

Creating a new tax in congress is going to be really hard when your president is beholden to a movement known as the 'Taxed Enough Already" party.

And how would you impose this tax? How would the government be able to determine who has health insurance and who doesn't?

Would you really want the IRS to be the one to make sure that everyone has insurance?

 

[MuadDib]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

horsecrap.

There's no constituitonal issue here. If the government can require you to register for the draft or to pay taxes, it can compell you to buy insurance.

In fact, in 1796, Congress passed a law requiring every able bodied man to own a gun as part of his obligation to be part of the "militia". No one had a constitutional problem with that.

If the court strikes it down on a 5-4 partisan vote, it will be politics, not law.

I think you're talking about the Militia Act of 1792 and it only applied to able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. It also exempted certain government officials.

Defenders of the ACA have often cited this act as a precedent for requiring citizens to purchase something, but it's a pretty specious claim.

 

[JoeB131]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

horsecrap.

There's no constituitonal issue here. If the government can require you to register for the draft or to pay taxes, it can compell you to buy insurance.

In fact, in 1796, Congress passed a law requiring every able bodied man to own a gun as part of his obligation to be part of the "militia". No one had a constitutional problem with that.

If the court strikes it down on a 5-4 partisan vote, it will be politics, not law.

I think you're talking about the Militia Act of 1792 and it only applied to able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. It also exempted certain government officials.

Defenders of the ACA have often cited this act as a precedent for requiring citizens to purchase something, but it's a pretty specious claim.

The thing is, the government had the power to MANDATE people do something and purchase something.

And no one had a constitatuional issue with it.

 

[MuadDib]

horsecrap.

There's no constituitonal issue here. If the government can require you to register for the draft or to pay taxes, it can compell you to buy insurance.

In fact, in 1796, Congress passed a law requiring every able bodied man to own a gun as part of his obligation to be part of the "militia". No one had a constitutional problem with that.

If the court strikes it down on a 5-4 partisan vote, it will be politics, not law.

I think you're talking about the Militia Act of 1792 and it only applied to able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. It also exempted certain government officials.

Defenders of the ACA have often cited this act as a precedent for requiring citizens to purchase something, but it's a pretty specious claim.

The thing is, the government had the power to MANDATE people do something and purchase something.

And no one had a constitatuional issue with it.

The militia act was a response to the greatest defeat of US forces in history in the Northwest Territories by the Indians. St. Claire's Defeat.

The Constitution empowers the Federal government to provide for the common defense. It does not empower the government to force you to buy insurance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of my fellow supporters fool themselves thinking that eliminating the mandate will gut the program.

You know it won't and I know it won't, because it requires a simple fix in Congress: call a tax a tax.

Actually, I know nothing of the sort.

Creating a new tax in congress is going to be really hard when your president is beholden to a movement known as the 'Taxed Enough Already" party.

And how would you impose this tax? How would the government be able to determine who has health insurance and who doesn't?

Would you really want the IRS to be the one to make sure that everyone has insurance?

The fix is simple. Whether you agree is immaterial.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you're talking about the Militia Act of 1792 and it only applied to able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. It also exempted certain government officials.

Defenders of the ACA have often cited this act as a precedent for requiring citizens to purchase something, but it's a pretty specious claim.

The thing is, the government had the power to MANDATE people do something and purchase something.

And no one had a constitatuional issue with it.

The militia act was a response to the greatest defeat of US forces in history in the Northwest Territories by the Indians. St. Claire's Defeat.

The Constitution empowers the Federal government to provide for the common defense. It does not empower the government to force you to buy insurance.

Wow, so you have this defeat that Even I'm not all that familiar with as a history major...

Seems to me it couldn't have been that impressive.

I think 46 million people without insurance is a bit more of a pressing matter than some obscure battle where all of 600 people were killed. Just saying.

 

[JoeB131]

Some of my fellow supporters fool themselves thinking that eliminating the mandate will gut the program.

You know it won't and I know it won't, because it requires a simple fix in Congress: call a tax a tax.

Actually, I know nothing of the sort.

Creating a new tax in congress is going to be really hard when your president is beholden to a movement known as the 'Taxed Enough Already" party.

And how would you impose this tax? How would the government be able to determine who has health insurance and who doesn't?

Would you really want the IRS to be the one to make sure that everyone has insurance?

The fix is simple. Whether you agree is immaterial.

The fix is simple only if it can be implemented, which in this case, it can't be and won't be.

I'm starting to really feel your pain, Jake... Trying to pretend to support Romney's current positions while justifying his past ones.... You must feel like this guy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB continues to display a willfull stubborness despite the truth.

The fix is simple, and Romney will make it happen.

Just as JoeB failed in his attempts to support various GOP alternatives to Romney, JoeB is failing here big time.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB continues to display a willfull stubborness despite the truth.

The fix is simple, and Romney will make it happen.

Just as JoeB failed in his attempts to support various GOP alternatives to Romney, JoeB is failing here big time.

Uh, guy, exactly how is he going to make it "happen"?

The Democrats aren't going to work with him on this. They are going to be dead set to make him a one term president. If the Insurance system collapses on his watch, that's totally awesome for them.

And it's not like the GOP being deathly afraid of the TEA Party is going to get behind a tax increase to create socialized medicine.

If Romney wins, he'll be governing with Democrats out to destroy him and Republicans who don't trust him. Effectively, he'd be Jimmy Carter. Not trusted by his own party, hated by the oppossition.

Not that I think it will ever get that far. Was at a party yesterday, and frankly, the only person enthusiastic about Romney was my Limbaugh fan brother. Everyone else was kind of meh and a few people were surprised I wasn't supporting him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

um, guy, you continue to fail.

your willful stubbornness only witnesses to that fact.

 

[MuadDib]

The thing is, the government had the power to MANDATE people do something and purchase something.

And no one had a constitatuional issue with it.

The militia act was a response to the greatest defeat of US forces in history in the Northwest Territories by the Indians. St. Claire's Defeat.

The Constitution empowers the Federal government to provide for the common defense. It does not empower the government to force you to buy insurance.

Wow, so you have this defeat that Even I'm not all that familiar with as a history major...

Seems to me it couldn't have been that impressive.

I think 46 million people without insurance is a bit more of a pressing matter than some obscure battle where all of 600 people were killed. Just saying.

Right there's your problem. There's a lot of our history that the colleges and universities don't teach.

Health insurance as we know it did not exist until World War 2. When Roosevelt froze wages, employers began offering incentives such as health insurance. Prior to that, people were not dying like a zombie apocalypse because they couldn't get health care. They got care. Once the modern health care insurance industry was created, the cost of health care rolled like a snowball downhill.

Then the government stepped in with Medicare and Medicaid, you know, government health insurance, and began to regulate the living daylights out of medical services, which drove up the cost. Now, if you can pay out of pocket and cash is good because it doesn't require office staff to sort out the billing and deal with insurance, a doctor can't charge you less than Medicare rates or it's considered discrimination.

Get government the hell out of the way and you'll actually see the cost of medical care go down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The statement "Get government the hell out of the way and you'll actually see the cost of medical care go down" has no empirical data to support it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Some of my fellow supporters fool themselves thinking that eliminating the mandate will gut the program.

You know it won't and I know it won't, because it requires a simple fix in Congress: call a tax a tax.

Actually, I know nothing of the sort.

Creating a new tax in congress is going to be really hard when your president is beholden to a movement known as the 'Taxed Enough Already" party.

And how would you impose this tax? How would the government be able to determine who has health insurance and who doesn't?

Would you really want the IRS to be the one to make sure that everyone has insurance?

The fix is simple. Whether you agree is immaterial.

What matters is whether five jurists agree. Given that many of them, particularly the right-leaning judges, had a shaky grasp of the contents of the legislation (e.g. Scalia's references to the non-existent "Cornhusker kickback"), an even shakier grasp of the relevant economic concepts, and an oddly transparent fixation on political issues (to the point that Bartow Farr tried to put the brakes on rightwing musings about the role the Congressional partisan make-up should have on their deliberations: "Well, Your Honor, the -- the difficulty is that it seems to me the other possibility is for the Court to make choices particularly based on what it expects the difficulties of Congress altering the legislation after a Court ruling would be. I'm not aware of any severability decision that has ever looked at anything like this --"), I'm not inclined to think anything about this issue is simple.

Even if, yes, it's objectively simple.

 

[JoeB131]

The militia act was a response to the greatest defeat of US forces in history in the Northwest Territories by the Indians. St. Claire's Defeat.

The Constitution empowers the Federal government to provide for the common defense. It does not empower the government to force you to buy insurance.

Wow, so you have this defeat that Even I'm not all that familiar with as a history major...

Seems to me it couldn't have been that impressive.

I think 46 million people without insurance is a bit more of a pressing matter than some obscure battle where all of 600 people were killed. Just saying.

Right there's your problem. There's a lot of our history that the colleges and universities don't teach.

No, they teach what is important. One battle in our 200 year campaign to exterminate the native people in this country isn't that important. One might even argue that they don't emphasize it that much because this was one of the few white people lost.

Health insurance as we know it did not exist until World War 2. When Roosevelt froze wages, employers began offering incentives such as health insurance. Prior to that, people were not dying like a zombie apocalypse because they couldn't get health care. They got care. Once the modern health care insurance industry was created, the cost of health care rolled like a snowball downhill.

And a reading from the book of Limbaugh. Yes, we've all heard that story. I should point out that prior to world war II, people might not have been dying like the Zombie Apocolypse, but when they did get sick, there wasn't really jack diddly anyone could do about it. Which is why the average American Life expectency in 1930 was 59 and today it's 78.

Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2010 — Infoplease.com

Part of this is because we actually developed programs like the ones you denounce below to treat people... the other is because we developed technologies to treat them, and guess what, those technologies cost money.

Then the government stepped in with Medicare and Medicaid, you know, government health insurance, and began to regulate the living daylights out of medical services, which drove up the cost. Now, if you can pay out of pocket and cash is good because it doesn't require office staff to sort out the billing and deal with insurance, a doctor can't charge you less than Medicare rates or it's considered discrimination.

Get government the hell out of the way and you'll actually see the cost of medical care go down.

Actually, what drove up the cost was that we were starting to actually treat people, as stated above.

Now you do blunder into one thing. If we got rid of private insurance and just went to a single payer system, a lot of overhead would be cut down... that's for sure.

But of course, most "out of pocket" expenses might work for getting a prescription to treat that cold, but when you are talking about treatment for colonic cancer, not so much. Then you really do need for those costs to be "socialized" either through a government program or private insurance. Pay your own way won't work.