Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[SFC Ollie]

Yay..

In the right wing world I can be a doctor, lawyer, pilot..or just about anything. And the government has absolutely no say.

Heck..I can open up a pot stand on the street.

In what universe does that ^ post make any sense?

Head straight out past the Helix Nebula, hang a hard left, continue straight for a couple of thousand light years, it'll be the third Universe on the far left.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

That bold part sounds good.

Aren't health insurers already under anti-trust laws? Maybe those laws need to be tweaked, but no doubt the affected companies would be having a say on what exactly gets tweaked.

Some of those things make sense, and some seem like rearranging deck chairs. I just have a moral problem with health care being for profit, so I'm looking at the route of something like expanding Medicaid. I realize not everyone shares this view, but oh well.

No anti trust laws don't reach those states that form sweetheart deals with certain insurance companies that pretty much lock all others out. So a general law that healthcare companies can legally do business across state lines will do wonders to increase healthy competition among the companies.

Mind you I do not see the federal government offering catastrophe insurance for free any more than you get government sponsored earthquake or flood insurance free. But by the government being a single payer for that one catastrophic loss makes it much easier to buy affordable insurance from private carriers for everything else.

The bottom line is anything the Federal government does in this regard should require not one dime from the taxpayer that the taxpayer does not voluntarily pay.

And do not despise a profit motive re healthcare. It is a profit motive that provides us with amazing vehicles for transportation, amazing appliances that increase our quality of life, wonderful houses that are a delight to live in, quality clothing that is practically a work of art, amazing advances in technology and innovation and products that have transformed whole societies. There is no reason to believe that a profit motive and healthy competition won't also continue to advance the quality and effectiveness of all areas of healthcare and treatment too.

Getting the government mostly out of it other than to prevent us from doing violence to each other and letting the free market work is the only way to go.

 

[Immanuel]

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

That bold part sounds good.

+1

Immie

 

[Ravi]

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

That bold part sounds good.

+1

Immie

That's actually pretty close to the original proposal...only it was labeled socialism by the Republicans and Obama switched to a plan Republicans put forward back when Clinton was trying to pass healthcare reform.

Sigh.

 

[Samson]

That's actually pretty close to the original proposal...only it was labeled socialism by the Republicans and Obama switched to a plan Republicans put forward back when Clinton was trying to pass healthcare reform.

Sigh.

Do the Dems ever do anything without being under the influance of Evul Republicans? Are any of them over the age of 18?

Maybe the Dems should try labeling something before Republicans and then Obama wouldn't need to switch to a plan Republicans, "put forward back when" (whatever the **** that horribly confused phrasing means) Bush was president?

 

[Immanuel]

That bold part sounds good.

+1

Immie

That's actually pretty close to the original proposal...only it was labeled socialism by the Republicans and Obama switched to a plan Republicans put forward back when Clinton was trying to pass healthcare reform.

Sigh.

A low cost catastrophic insurance plan that people can choose whether or not to purchase on their own is a good idea and not anything at all like what has been proposed by this administration. One major point of contention here is the fact that this plan would be voluntary not compulsory as Obama's plan is. In my opinion, that is one of the big issues here.

Immie

 

[Sheldon]

No anti trust laws don't reach those states that form sweetheart deals with certain insurance companies that pretty much lock all others out. So a general law that healthcare companies can legally do business across state lines will do wonders to increase healthy competition among the companies.

I think you're overstating the impact of purchase across state lines. There's positives and negatives to this solution. The CBO did a study on a 2005 bill about this.

Under current law, issuers of individual health insurance must be licensed in the state in which they offer such coverage, and the coverage must comply with the laws and regulations of that state. There is considerable variation across states in two areas that have a substantial effect on the price of individual health insurance:

• Mandates that require coverage of certain services or benefits, and
• Rules affecting the extent to which insurers may charge different prices for coverage offered to individuals expected to incur costs above or below the average.

In general, health insurance that includes coverage of mandated benefits will cost more than it would if those benefits were not required. In aggregate, this estimate assumes that if only those benefit mandates imposed by the states with the lowest-cost mandates were in effect in all states, the price of individual health insurance would be reduced by about 5 percent, on average.



Limiting the extent of variation in the prices charged to individuals expected to incur costs above or below the average tends to increase the price charged to individuals expected to have lower-than-average costs, while lowering the price for people expected to have higher-than-average costs. Such price compression also tends to increase the average price compared to an alternative in which variation in the prices charged more closely reflects the costs that individuals are expected to incur. That is because price compression makes coverage more affordable to people who expect to incur relatively high costs (so more of them purchase the coverage), whereas price compression increases the cost of coverage for people who would be expected to incur relatively low costs (so fewer of them purchase the coverage than if those individuals were charged prices that more closely reflect their expected cost).

H.R. 2355, Health Care Choice Act of 2005

Good for some, bad for others. And if purchase was allowed without any regard for state boundaries, it would strip individual states from setting their own regulations about benefits and consumer protections.




Anyways, the new law has the provision that starts in 2014 (or maybe 2016, I can't remember) that allows any state to opt-in to a compact with another state. It seems logical that states with similar regulations will hook up, and states with very different regulations won't since the state with the stricter regulations would be the losing partner.

In other words, another milquetoast compromise in this law that will have a negligible effect since it's teeth were taken out.

 

[Foxfyre]

Insurance companies manage to compete quite easily despite varying state regulations and requirements for auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, general liability insurance, E & O, monies & securities, malpractice, and special policies for rare or unusual processes or products. There is no reason that healthcare companies should not have the same ability. Some insurance companies will opt to do business in some states and not others as it has always been, but the ONLY reason that you see so many monopolies or near monopolies for healthcare insurance is because state officials and insurance companies negotiate sweet heart deals. That should be illegal as it is contrary to the general welfare for a vital and necessary product.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who pays his medical bills when he files for bankruptcy?

Slippery slope Art.
I could step out of this Diner and be killed by the #8 bus.
I don't have enough savings and my wife can't pay the bills. She loses the house and the car, has to fille bankruptcy and give in HUD housing, get food stamps and welfare and medicaid for the kids.
So, should the government mandate Life Insurance for every American...just it case?
How about disability insurance?

It is neither the government's nor society's responsibility to derisk individuals from all of life's miseries and accidents.

Yes it is with regard to society's responsibility. And to a lesser degree govts if they collect tax.

 

[Trajan]

This thread has taken some surreal turn. Lets see;

In the desperation to posit some connecting dictum, to make a case the mandate is now equivalent to; a property tax, Medicare, police , fire dept. , water treatment, garbage hauling, street light repair, stoplights, road paving..have I missed anything?

At least we didn’t go back to the ultimate fail- car insurance comparisons....

 

[grunt11b]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

My understanding is when Congress writes a law they insert a clause saying if one part is found unconstitutional the rest of the law can be separated from the part. Here they neglected to do so. So the entire law must be struck down if one part is unconstitutional.

Didn't the left-nuts tell us all this suing in court was a waste of taxpayer money, that the law would never be found unconstitutional?

If you seen my explanation in another thread it tells you why, this law was never meant to be about healthcare, and here is why.

Stick with me on this, it seems far fetched, but it's true. Just think about it for a second. Obama was playing the healthcare card in his right hand, while doing something else with his left.

It's not about healthcare, it's always been about green energy. Obama and the like need that individual mandate to pass muster so that they could enforce under law that every American buy whatever product that they see fit. If the individual mandate passes, then they can say that for the good of the nation and our own well being we have to buy green energy products like windmills and what not, ever notice how Jeffrey Immelt AKA "President of General Electric" is Obamas top ecenomic advisor? Wonder what kind of kick back this special interest group business owner is going to get from Obama? Maybe a whole nation of 310,000,000 being made to buy green energy General Electric appliances? Well, at least we know of one big money special interest business owner that helped Obama buy off his election.
Also, ever notice how Al Gore has 2 Billion wrapped up in solar panels? Could this also be a coincidence? I doubt it.
Also have you noticed that Obama signed the drilling moratorium and now all of a sudden Egypt is about to go up and Obama supports Mubarak to step down? I will explain why he supports this, because for the last 30 years Mubarak has supported the United States, and by support I mean by keeping the Suez Canal open so that oil coming to America can flow freely through the canal to America. If Mubarak steps down and the Muslim brotherhood take over, that canal will be shut down, that coupled with the drilling moratorium that obama signed will crush America when it comes to energy, and what do you know?........the individual mandate gets passed just in time for them to make you also purchase green products from Jeffery Immelt and Al Gore.
Wow, isn't this hope and change awesome!!!
Don't kid yourself, this has nothing to do with healthcare, it has everything to do with that individual mandate. If the mandate falls, the whole bill falls, and there green agenda falls with it. That's why they would not do healthcare WITHOUT the MANDATE. These people stand to make trillions off of green energy, wake up.
Stick around kid, you might learn something from me.

 

[Flopper]

Does a person NEED healthcare insurance at 20-ish with low risk and no history of any life threatening diseases? I say no and it should NOT be the gubmint's decision that he must...

Why are some people "exempt" from 0bamacare?

Insurance only works if it contains both low and higher risk customers. If there are only high risk customers, then premiums increase forcing all but the highest risk customers from the pool which pushes premiums even higher forcing more people out of the pool. As the young grow older and decide they aren't going to live forever, they find insurance too expensive. When they have serious health problems they deplete their savings and often have to rely on society to pay their medical bills. This is no win situation for all but the very lucky.

Is that really grounds for forcing the young to buy insurance today?

Immie

Yes. Is it constitutional? I have no idea and will not debate that.
From a practical standpoint, we need low risk policyholders otherwise premiums go through the roof and a large segment of the population cannot afford insurance. One might argue that it is unfair to force the young to buy insurance that they don’t feel they need. However, what happens when the young are no longer young and need that insurance. If current trends continue, they won’t be able to afford it.

When a person decides not to carry insurance they are not just putting themselves at risk but others. When people get sick with contagious diseases and can’t afford medical care they put us all at risk. Cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases can send ones medical costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hospitals and doctors don’t get paid. Home mortgages don’t get paid resulting in foreclosures. These costs are then pass own to all of us.

 

[DiveCon]

Insurance only works if it contains both low and higher risk customers. If there are only high risk customers, then premiums increase forcing all but the highest risk customers from the pool which pushes premiums even higher forcing more people out of the pool. As the young grow older and decide they aren't going to live forever, they find insurance too expensive. When they have serious health problems they deplete their savings and often have to rely on society to pay their medical bills. This is no win situation for all but the very lucky.

Is that really grounds for forcing the young to buy insurance today?

Immie

Yes. Is it constitutional? I have no idea and will not debate that.
From a practical standpoint, we need low risk policyholders otherwise premiums go through the roof and a large segment of the population cannot afford insurance. One might argue that it is unfair to force the young to buy insurance that they don’t feel they need. However, what happens when the young are no longer young and need that insurance. If current trends continue, they won’t be able to afford it.

When a person decides not to carry insurance they are not just putting themselves at risk but others. When people get sick with contagious diseases and can’t afford medical care they put us all at risk. Cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases can send ones medical costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hospitals and doctors don’t get paid. Home mortgages don’t get paid resulting in foreclosures. These costs are then pass own to all of us.

so basically, you want to nationalize all medical professions, have them be government employees, paid for by a new tax system

 

[Flopper]

Is that really grounds for forcing the young to buy insurance today?

Immie

Yes. Is it constitutional? I have no idea and will not debate that.
From a practical standpoint, we need low risk policyholders otherwise premiums go through the roof and a large segment of the population cannot afford insurance. One might argue that it is unfair to force the young to buy insurance that they don’t feel they need. However, what happens when the young are no longer young and need that insurance. If current trends continue, they won’t be able to afford it.

When a person decides not to carry insurance they are not just putting themselves at risk but others. When people get sick with contagious diseases and can’t afford medical care they put us all at risk. Cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases can send ones medical costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hospitals and doctors don’t get paid. Home mortgages don’t get paid resulting in foreclosures. These costs are then pass own to all of us.

so basically, you want to nationalize all medical professions, have them be government employees, paid for by a new tax system

Of course not. I just want to see everyone covered by health insurance. Under the current law that insurance is primarily non-government insurance and is certainly likely to stay so. A small percent of the doctors and hospitals are government run, primarily VA, and there is nothing in law that changes that. The law simply mandates everyone carry insurance and insurance companies can't refuse people.

 

[Immanuel]

Insurance only works if it contains both low and higher risk customers. If there are only high risk customers, then premiums increase forcing all but the highest risk customers from the pool which pushes premiums even higher forcing more people out of the pool. As the young grow older and decide they aren't going to live forever, they find insurance too expensive. When they have serious health problems they deplete their savings and often have to rely on society to pay their medical bills. This is no win situation for all but the very lucky.

Is that really grounds for forcing the young to buy insurance today?

Immie

Yes. Is it constitutional? I have no idea and will not debate that.
From a practical standpoint, we need low risk policyholders otherwise premiums go through the roof and a large segment of the population cannot afford insurance. One might argue that it is unfair to force the young to buy insurance that they don’t feel they need. However, what happens when the young are no longer young and need that insurance. If current trends continue, they won’t be able to afford it.

When a person decides not to carry insurance they are not just putting themselves at risk but others. When people get sick with contagious diseases and can’t afford medical care they put us all at risk. Cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases can send ones medical costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hospitals and doctors don’t get paid. Home mortgages don’t get paid resulting in foreclosures. These costs are then pass own to all of us.

In my humble opinion, that is still not a reason for forcing the young (or anyone for that matter) to take insurance. I believe that most reasonable people will choose to be insured even at a young age especially if the premiums are not exorbitant. I do not agree with you in that the government should force those who choose not to be insured to do so.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Yes. Is it constitutional? I have no idea and will not debate that.
From a practical standpoint, we need low risk policyholders otherwise premiums go through the roof and a large segment of the population cannot afford insurance. One might argue that it is unfair to force the young to buy insurance that they don’t feel they need. However, what happens when the young are no longer young and need that insurance. If current trends continue, they won’t be able to afford it.

When a person decides not to carry insurance they are not just putting themselves at risk but others. When people get sick with contagious diseases and can’t afford medical care they put us all at risk. Cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases can send ones medical costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hospitals and doctors don’t get paid. Home mortgages don’t get paid resulting in foreclosures. These costs are then pass own to all of us.

so basically, you want to nationalize all medical professions, have them be government employees, paid for by a new tax system

Of course not. I just want to see everyone covered by health insurance. Under the current law that insurance is primarily non-government insurance and is certainly likely to stay so. A small percent of the doctors and hospitals are government run, primarily VA, and there is nothing in law that changes that. The law simply mandates everyone carry insurance and insurance companies can't refuse people.

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

 

[Megatron]

so basically, you want to nationalize all medical professions, have them be government employees, paid for by a new tax system

Of course not. I just want to see everyone covered by health insurance. Under the current law that insurance is primarily non-government insurance and is certainly likely to stay so. A small percent of the doctors and hospitals are government run, primarily VA, and there is nothing in law that changes that. The law simply mandates everyone carry insurance and insurance companies can't refuse people.

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Divecon you have no idea what your talking about AGAIN just stop kid

 

[DiveCon]

Of course not. I just want to see everyone covered by health insurance. Under the current law that insurance is primarily non-government insurance and is certainly likely to stay so. A small percent of the doctors and hospitals are government run, primarily VA, and there is nothing in law that changes that. The law simply mandates everyone carry insurance and insurance companies can't refuse people.

and that is what's being challenged as unconstitutional
the mandate

Divecon you have no idea what your talking about AGAIN just stop kid

**** off pissant

 

[Sheldon]

Insurance companies manage to compete quite easily despite varying state regulations and requirements for auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, general liability insurance, E & O, monies & securities, malpractice, and special policies for rare or unusual processes or products. There is no reason that healthcare companies should not have the same ability. Some insurance companies will opt to do business in some states and not others as it has always been, but the ONLY reason that you see so many monopolies or near monopolies for healthcare insurance is because state officials and insurance companies negotiate sweet heart deals. That should be illegal as it is contrary to the general welfare for a vital and necessary product.

Have advances in auto repair technology increased the operational costs by a ton? Do auto insurers need to use their market share as leverage when bargaining for lower prices with a network of mechanic shops? Do those shops have to pass forward the the uncovered portions of an alternative government plan for high-risk or poor drivers? What is the cost ratio between high risk and low risk drivers?

The health insurance industry is unique and doesn't respond to supply and demand in all the same ways that other markets do.

Sure I can shop around for my auto policy, but that policy still has to conform to my state's minimum coverage mandates. And of course homeowner's rates are geocentric, not always required if you fully own the house, and is just a whole different animal.

But I'll run with the comparison just for fun. Just like auto, each state already has their minimum coverage mandates--so making the purchase of health insurance like auto insurance wouldn't change much. What does it matter if I can buy a policy from here or from Alabama, if both of them have to conform to my state's minimum coverage requirements?

What is being proposed by Republicans is different from how auto works. It would be less like that insurance, and more like credit card companies, with the regulations and coverage requirements being applied by the insurer's state of residence and not the purchaser's state.

This is just a red herring. I could deal with having interstate health insurance (I'm for the single payer option, so it would be hypocritical to be against other initiatives that provide options), but there could be some unintended consequences--that's what I'm trying to point out.

Imo, it won't be as wondrously big a fix as Republicans pretend. The main problem is health care costs, not the way it's paid for.

 

[Bern80]

The health insurance industry is unique and doesn't respond to supply and demand in all the same ways that other markets do.

You're right, the reason being is the consumer being so far removed from the product. There is no consumer driven incentive to lower costs. The bulk of Americans get insurance through their employer. The premiums get deducted from their paychecks and they barely give a second thought to what they are paying for premiums. Others are on Medicare or Medicaid which they pay nothing at all for.

Folks, supply and demand are LAWS of economics, not theories. It isn't that health insurance is immune to those laws. It means there are other variables in place preventing them from working as they should.

Sure I can shop around for my auto policy, but that policy still has to conform to my state's minimum coverage mandates. And of course homeowner's rates are geocentric, not always required if you fully own the house, and is just a whole different animal.

But I'll run with the comparison just for fun. Just like auto, each state already has their minimum coverage mandates--so making the purchase of health insurance like auto insurance wouldn't change much. What does it matter if I can buy a policy from here or from Alabama, if both of them have to conform to my state's minimum coverage requirements?

Right again. It wouldn't make any difference. So back up and ask yourself why the state is deciding what you have to purchase instead of you deciding what you WANT to purchase? Again it is part of the reason why supply and demand aren't working. The demand is not really coming from you. Demand is just another term for what the customer wants, but in health insurance and other types of insurance it isn't really you telling the market what you want. It's some government beauracrat telling what you need to have. Why are people so afraid to let the free market work?