SHould the mandate or the entire bill go?

[LordBrownTrout]

The whole bill should be struck down and then sent back to congress to draft a constitutional bill that actually does something about healthcare.

 

[Dragon]

There is a flaw in your theory too, the govt's track record in this type of thing.

Why look at the Post Office or Amtrak, which are in totally other areas? Why not look at the single-payer system we already have: Medicare?

Poll: Medicare, Medicaid among most popular gov't services - News Breaks - Front Page - Chain Drug Review :: Reporter for the Chain Drug Store Industry

Don’t mess with medicare, poll | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com

Wonkbook: 84 percent oppose Ryan’s Medicare plan - The Washington Post

Poll: Most Americans say Medicare is worth the cost - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Seems to me that the U.S. government, like other governments of other advanced nations, is perfectly capable of running a single-payer health-care system that people are very happy with. Since Medicare would work much better if it were expanded to cover everyone (it would then have the leverage to keep the cost of medical care down), there's every reason to believe it would be much MORE popular even than it is now.

It wouldn't even cost that much more, and might actually cost less. Medicare is already covering the most at-risk population, the ones most expensive to cover (old people), and since it would be better positioned to control medical care inflation if expanded to cover everyone, while at the same time the rest of the population would be much less expensive (per person) to cover than people over 65, the total cost of the program might actually go DOWN.

It's the sensible thing to do.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

People are paid to read bills for them and break it down to the nuts and bolts.

there's no way they could read 2000 pages and grasp the enormity of what it all means by themselves.

And then crazy lady was telling us that it needed to passed so we could see what was in it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But you know as well as I do that he won't. The "conservatives" will never let him.

But conservatives support that idea already, in fact it was one of the arguments many made againt obamacare during the run up to the vote on it.

I thought you just said in an earlier post that this should be left up to the states to deal with??

I personally find it to be a state's issue. However, the federal govt can pass regulations on the health insurance industry to deal with things such as pre existing conditions without violating the constitution.

The problem with the Affordable Care Act was the uncositutional individual mandate. They federal government can not compel a citizen to buy a product from a private company by virtue of being born.

 

[Dragon]

The whole bill should be struck down and then sent back to congress to draft a constitutional bill that actually does something about healthcare.

Exactly. And the only thing that would do that would be a single-payer system.

 

[Dr.House]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

Not a chance... There is no groundswell of American support for single payer...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Personally, I think the whole pile of shit should go but as a matter of law, I'm not sure it works that way.

That is how the law and the precedence actually work. The Supreme Court doesn't write/edit legislation it only decides if a piece of legislation is constitutional or not. If a piece is not the precedence is to toss out the entire legislation and have congress re-write it.

 

[occupied]

The whole bill should be struck down and then sent back to congress to draft a constitutional bill that actually does something about healthcare.

Exactly. And the only thing that would do that would be a single-payer system.

We are not going to be able to preserve our health care system and insurance companies' profits both, one of them will have to go.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There is a flaw in your theory too, the govt's track record in this type of thing.

Why look at the Post Office or Amtrak, which are in totally other areas? Why not look at the single-payer system we already have: Medicare?

Poll: Medicare, Medicaid among most popular gov't services - News Breaks - Front Page - Chain Drug Review :: Reporter for the Chain Drug Store Industry

Don’t mess with medicare, poll | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com

Wonkbook: 84 percent oppose Ryan’s Medicare plan - The Washington Post

Poll: Most Americans say Medicare is worth the cost - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Seems to me that the U.S. government, like other governments of other advanced nations, is perfectly capable of running a single-payer health-care system that people are very happy with. Since Medicare would work much better if it were expanded to cover everyone (it would then have the leverage to keep the cost of medical care down), there's every reason to believe it would be much MORE popular even than it is now.

It wouldn't even cost that much more, and might actually cost less. Medicare is already covering the most at-risk population, the ones most expensive to cover (old people), and since it would be better positioned to control medical care inflation if expanded to cover everyone, while at the same time the rest of the population would be much less expensive (per person) to cover than people over 65, the total cost of the program might actually go DOWN.

It's the sensible thing to do.

Excellent point, look at how overbudget medicare is. We have to borrow money from china just to pay for it already.

Thanks for giving me a 3rd piece of ammunition for that specific argument!

EDIT: Oh and social security too

 

[Truthmatters]

bullshit , they can determine one part unconstitutional and strike jsut it.


They wont, they will strike it all and then the American people will have to face being dumped for getting sick, not being able to buy insurance because they are already sick and milllions of young people will have nothing but emergency rooms as medical care again.


We will go back to the worst care per capita in the western world again and the right will be soooooooo happy

 

[Truthmatters]

how would the right fix this problem?

 

[Dr.House]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

While the proper thing to do seems to be to strike it all down.

I'd rather not.

there were some very good rules in there that would protect private citizens from getting fucked over by megga corp ins companies.

Dig out what is and is not Constitutional, rid ourselves of the useless tripe, and stick with some solid basics.

That could all be done again in smaller bills once they go back to the drawing board...

Pass the no-brainer shit quickly and get it done...

 

[Truthmatters]

The whole bill should be struck down and then sent back to congress to draft a constitutional bill that actually does something about healthcare.

Exactly. And the only thing that would do that would be a single-payer system.

We are not going to be able to preserve our health care system and insurance companies' profits both, one of them will have to go.

So true , the health insurance people have about lobbied themselves out of exsistance this time.


Only the rich will be able to afford healthcare.

That wont make it very good for healthcare institutions or insurance cos.

 

[Two Thumbs]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

While the proper thing to do seems to be to strike it all down.

I'd rather not.

there were some very good rules in there that would protect private citizens from getting fucked over by megga corp ins companies.

Dig out what is and is not Constitutional, rid ourselves of the useless tripe, and stick with some solid basics.

I agree there is some good stuff in the bill. However the bill doesn't stand with parts of it being unconstitutional. They need to throw this one out and re-introduce the good stuff from the bill in a smaller bill that does not contain provisions that violate the federal govt's authority as outlined in our constitution.

I should have been clearer.

I know the whole bill is done.

using the same bill, have someone who understands what is and is not Constitutional, pull out the good parts and re-send a different bill.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I forgot. Who insured the colonists? Who were their healthcare providers?

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

People are paid to read bills for them and break it down to the nuts and bolts.

there's no way they could read 2000 pages and grasp the enormity of what it all means by themselves.

And then crazy lady was telling us that it needed to passed so we could see what was in it.

And that is just batshitcrazy.

How does that buffoon keep her job?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

bullshit , they can determine one part unconstitutional and strike jsut it.


They wont, they will strike it all and then the American people will have to face being dumped for getting sick, not being able to buy insurance because they are already sick and milllions of young people will have nothing but emergency rooms as medical care again.


We will go back to the worst care per capita in the western world again and the right will be soooooooo happy

Can't really say that about Romney if he is the canidate. However Romney can say "At least I passed health care legislation that followed the laws, you know I can deal with health issues in a way that won't get struck down as unconstitutional unlike our current president who doesn't understand the limits of power placed on the federal govt"



Spin is easy. The teaparty would eat that line up!

 

[Dragon]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

Not a chance... There is no groundswell of American support for single payer...

It hasn't been offered as an option by any politicians, except at the state level, where it is popular. Note what I posted above about the popularity of Medicare.

 

[Dragon]

Excellent point, look at how overbudget medicare is.

You need to go back and re-read my post, for comprehension this time. Please do.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

There is a flaw in your theory too, the govt's track record in this type of thing.

Why look at the Post Office or Amtrak, which are in totally other areas? Why not look at the single-payer system we already have: Medicare?

Poll: Medicare, Medicaid among most popular gov't services - News Breaks - Front Page - Chain Drug Review :: Reporter for the Chain Drug Store Industry

Don’t mess with medicare, poll | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com

Wonkbook: 84 percent oppose Ryan’s Medicare plan - The Washington Post

Poll: Most Americans say Medicare is worth the cost - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Seems to me that the U.S. government, like other governments of other advanced nations, is perfectly capable of running a single-payer health-care system that people are very happy with. Since Medicare would work much better if it were expanded to cover everyone (it would then have the leverage to keep the cost of medical care down), there's every reason to believe it would be much MORE popular even than it is now.

It wouldn't even cost that much more, and might actually cost less. Medicare is already covering the most at-risk population, the ones most expensive to cover (old people), and since it would be better positioned to control medical care inflation if expanded to cover everyone, while at the same time the rest of the population would be much less expensive (per person) to cover than people over 65, the total cost of the program might actually go DOWN.

It's the sensible thing to do.

Showing that Medicare is popular doesn't show that it's workable. Medicare is already going bankrupt. You're hurting your own argument.