Why does Obama hate sick people???

[flacaltenn]

Well then, should the Supreme's shoot down the present Health Care, it will be time to work of a fully universal health care system based on an income tax on all income.

I'm not and I don't think MOST Americans are ready for another UNIVERSAL anything. Universal retirement insurance didn't even make it ONE GENERATION before serious consideration of turning that into a means-tested welfare transfer..

On the OP -- Obama knows that premiums will skyrocket if the Pre Xing conditions stuff remains in there. Nothing he wants credit for there...

 

[Mac1958]

.

Personally, I think we should have a template for threads like this to save a few seconds. Maybe a link that makes the following line pop up:

Why (do/does) (a name of someone from the other party/the other party) hate (fill in appropriate victim or victim group here)???

That would save a few seconds with titles, I think.

.

 

[dblack]

I agree that we should have no Health Insurance. I disagree with your alternative.

I wasn't suggesting NO health insurance. Just much less. It should be a hedge against risk, not a means of financing regular health care expenses.

My ideal alternative is single payer. I believe it is the only way we will be able to compete in a global marketplace.

Single payer is still health insurance - it's just government run health insurance. It will create the same problems in the health care market that private insurance does (arguably worse). The only way that single payer will be able to avoid the health care inflation inherent in the nation being over-insured is with draconian state imposed price controls. And if that's the solution then we should simply socialize health care altogether and provide it as a government service.

I think that would a horrible idea, for all kinds of reasons, but you need to understand it's the endgame in what you're suggesting. As soon as we make government responsible for our health care, they own our health care. And by extension, our health.

 

[Greenbeard]

The ACA does not contain a severability clause. It is up in the air whether or not the SCOTUS will agree with the January 31, 2011 opinion of Judge Vinson, who struck down the individual mandate as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power and ruled that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the remainder of the act, or if they will rule that it can be separated.

Of course there's not a severability clause. Given that such a clause is a standard feature of large bills, it's omission was clearly intentional.

As the Eleventh Circuit pointed out in its ruling striking down the mandate but severing it from the rest of the law: "First, both the Senate and House legislative drafting manuals state that, in light of Supreme Court precedent in favor of severability, severability clauses are unnecessary unless they specifically state that all or some portions of a statute should not be severed." [emphasis mine]

If Congress wanted the entire law (or even just the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions) to fall with the mandate, that's when they would have needed, according to their drafting manuals, to note that. Otherwise Congressional drafters proceed with the presumption of severability.

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree that we should have no Health Insurance. I disagree with your alternative.

I wasn't suggesting NO health insurance. Just much less. It should be a hedge against risk, not a means of financing regular health care expenses.

My ideal alternative is single payer. I believe it is the only way we will be able to compete in a global marketplace.

Single payer is still health insurance - it's just government run health insurance. It will create the same problems in the health care market that private insurance does (arguably worse). The only way that single payer will be able to avoid the health care inflation inherent in the nation being over-insured is with draconian state imposed price controls. And if that's the solution then we should simply socialize health care altogether and provide it as a government service.

I think that would a horrible idea, for all kinds of reasons, but you need to understand it's the endgame in what you're suggesting. As soon as we make government responsible for our health care, they own our health care. And by extension, our health.

I agree with the idea that MUCH less health insurance is required.. Do the numbers yourself.. What do you get if you paid YOURSELF $1000/mo for family insurance instead of Blue Cross? --- A POTFULL of money after just 5 yrs or so.. Especially if invested at even a couple %. Pick up a $10K deductible plan, and you'll never miss the old system after a couple years. It's the MSA HSA idea that lefties hate -- without the govt tax-free.. THey hate it because for 80% of the population -- it solves the healthcare problem..

((Actually what is needed in conjunction with self-insuring and high deductible is buying power.. Have providers willing to recognize that you will give them 5% ABOVE what the insurance companies beat them down to --- AND they can get it without 3 assistants and reams of paperwork and compliance.))))