Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the Mandate portion of Obamacare is struck down.
A lot of the rest of it will fall under the regulatory power of the Federal Government. It's a bit dicey, as that regulatory power falls under Interstate Commerce and Healthcare is actually regulated by the State to the point you can't actually DO business cross state lines when it comes to health care, but I'm betting you'll see the Supreme Court uphold a lot of the finer details.
Some of it, like the Exchanges, won't even be addressed as those are well within Federal power.
Once the Mandate is struck down though, that's going to cut the heart out of this bill. The Mandate was the one pay off for the Health Insurance Providers that might have got them to bring down costs. Without it you'll see the Insurance Companies saddled with more regulation and less incentive to bring down cost.
Agreed. What I'm saying is that I bet the Pre-Existing will be allowed to stand under a regulatory argument. And that will be the real disaster.If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the Mandate portion of Obamacare is struck down.
A lot of the rest of it will fall under the regulatory power of the Federal Government. It's a bit dicey, as that regulatory power falls under Interstate Commerce and Healthcare is actually regulated by the State to the point you can't actually DO business cross state lines when it comes to health care, but I'm betting you'll see the Supreme Court uphold a lot of the finer details.
Some of it, like the Exchanges, won't even be addressed as those are well within Federal power.
Once the Mandate is struck down though, that's going to cut the heart out of this bill. The Mandate was the one pay off for the Health Insurance Providers that might have got them to bring down costs. Without it you'll see the Insurance Companies saddled with more regulation and less incentive to bring down cost.
the madate is the offset to the pre existing condition thing.
You can not allow for someone to enrol in insurance with a pre existing condition without also madating the need for insurance.
Otherwise, people will not buy insurance until they are diagnosed with some catastrophic illness.
Should the Pre-Existing stay while the Mandate goes, then Obamacare will end up doing the very opposite of what it was supposed to do, and that will be a real problem.
Agreed. What I'm saying is that I bet the Pre-Existing will be allowed to stand under a regulatory argument. And that will be the real disaster.the madate is the offset to the pre existing condition thing.
You can not allow for someone to enrol in insurance with a pre existing condition without also madating the need for insurance.
Otherwise, people will not buy insurance until they are diagnosed with some catastrophic illness.
Should the Pre-Existing stay while the Mandate goes, then Obamacare will end up doing the very opposite of what it was supposed to do, and that will be a real problem.
Oh yes...absolutely...the pre existing thing is by no means unconsitutional....it is a sound regulation and within the governments authority.
Afterall, if the insurance companies dont like it, they can go into another industry..
Problem is, the premiums will not only skyrocket....but more people will risk no insurance at all until they need it and premiums will skyrocket even more...
The truth is, take out the mandate and keep the rest of the law intact, and the industry will be a non entity within one year. It will be impossible to operate an insurance company.
Not to mention, nobody makes people buy car insurance. The laws usually states that if you register a car in your name, and operate it on the street, it must be insured.
A great many people do not have car insurance. It's an idiotic analogy.
Of course it is.
But idiots keep using it.
yes...that is true and it frustrates the hell oput of me.
If you opt to own a car, you must carry insurance.
The key word being "opt".
Now...lets see someone apply that to the madate of health insurance.
Here...let me try...
If you OPT to live, you must have insurance......no...that doesnt work. Let me try again
If you live, you may opt to have insurance. No...Not it either. One more try
You can opt to live if you buy insurance. Nope, Still doesnt work.
Nope....the word "opt" does not come into play.
So yes, they are two totally different concepts.
Of course it is.
But idiots keep using it.
yes...that is true and it frustrates the hell oput of me.
If you opt to own a car, you must carry insurance.
The key word being "opt".
Now...lets see someone apply that to the madate of health insurance.
Here...let me try...
If you OPT to live, you must have insurance......no...that doesnt work. Let me try again
If you live, you may opt to have insurance. No...Not it either. One more try
You can opt to live if you buy insurance. Nope, Still doesnt work.
Nope....the word "opt" does not come into play.
So yes, they are two totally different concepts.
Allow me
If you OPT to work at a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then you must buy health insurance.
Of course it is.
But idiots keep using it.
yes...that is true and it frustrates the hell oput of me.
If you opt to own a car, you must carry insurance.
The key word being "opt".
Now...lets see someone apply that to the madate of health insurance.
Here...let me try...
If you OPT to live, you must have insurance......no...that doesnt work. Let me try again
If you live, you may opt to have insurance. No...Not it either. One more try
You can opt to live if you buy insurance. Nope, Still doesnt work.
Nope....the word "opt" does not come into play.
So yes, they are two totally different concepts.
Allow me
If you OPT to work at a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then you must buy health insurance.
yes...that is true and it frustrates the hell oput of me.
If you opt to own a car, you must carry insurance.
The key word being "opt".
Now...lets see someone apply that to the madate of health insurance.
Here...let me try...
If you OPT to live, you must have insurance......no...that doesnt work. Let me try again
If you live, you may opt to have insurance. No...Not it either. One more try
You can opt to live if you buy insurance. Nope, Still doesnt work.
Nope....the word "opt" does not come into play.
So yes, they are two totally different concepts.
Allow me
If you OPT to work at a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then you must buy health insurance.
LOL...good one.
Now...lets say you cant get a job with a company that offers health insurance? You want to, you try, none are available or none will hire you.
Agreed. What I'm saying is that I bet the Pre-Existing will be allowed to stand under a regulatory argument. And that will be the real disaster.
Should the Pre-Existing stay while the Mandate goes, then Obamacare will end up doing the very opposite of what it was supposed to do, and that will be a real problem.
Oh yes...absolutely...the pre existing thing is by no means unconsitutional....it is a sound regulation and within the governments authority.
Afterall, if the insurance companies dont like it, they can go into another industry..
Problem is, the premiums will not only skyrocket....but more people will risk no insurance at all until they need it and premiums will skyrocket even more...
The truth is, take out the mandate and keep the rest of the law intact, and the industry will be a non entity within one year. It will be impossible to operate an insurance company.
We do have an issue with Cobra
mine is 500 a month if (when) I get laid off
This is an issue that I am not sure how to resolve other than perhaps a safety net type of low cost hi deductible
I dont know
the pre existing is a real issue no matter if your for or against Obama-care
Of course it is.
But idiots keep using it.
yes...that is true and it frustrates the hell oput of me.
If you opt to own a car, you must carry insurance.
The key word being "opt".
Now...lets see someone apply that to the madate of health insurance.
Here...let me try...
If you OPT to live, you must have insurance......no...that doesnt work. Let me try again
If you live, you may opt to have insurance. No...Not it either. One more try
You can opt to live if you buy insurance. Nope, Still doesnt work.
Nope....the word "opt" does not come into play.
So yes, they are two totally different concepts.
Allow me
If you OPT to work at a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then you must buy health insurance.
Allow me
If you OPT to work at a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then you must buy health insurance.
LOL...good one.
Now...lets say you cant get a job with a company that offers health insurance? You want to, you try, none are available or none will hire you.
Then you take personal responsibility for your situation and for the betterment of your family.
I thought you guys were big on responsibility?
Here's the key legal question: What is a "requirement"?
When the federal government imposes a requirement, it also imposes a penalty for failing to comply. This may be a civil fine, or in more serious cases it may be a criminal penalty. For example, you are required not to counterfeit U.S. money. If you do, you can be punished with prison time.
There are only certain things that the federal government is authorized to "require" in this sense, but it can issue "requirements" without any penalty attached for whatever it may please. Congress could, for example, "require" that everyone wear pink shorts on Sundays, as long as it attached no penalty for failing to do so. This would amount, in effect, to a resolution of Congress expressing an opinion without force of law. Any case brought before the courts arguing that the law was unconstitutional would be dismissed for lack of standing in that the plaintiff suffered no harm from the law.
The individual mandate falls into a gray area. It is a requirement without criminal penalty and technically without civil penalty. Instead, Congress levies a tax on those who choose to buy health insurance; or, it could be argued, levies a tax on everyone and includes an exemption for those who DO have health insurance. Congress clearly does have the authority to lay and collect taxes.
The question before the court will be whether this amounts to regulation by the back door such as has been struck down in the past, when the government has tried to use its tax and spend powers to create penalties or incentives for compliance with regulations it had no authority to issue. It's very much an open question.
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that many provisions of the ACA are very popular and will be demanded by the people, even though the individual mandate is not. If the mandate is struck down, and if that makes the ACA unworkable, we may well create the possibility of a single-payer system, especially if things get as bad thereafter as some predict.
Beware of what you ask for.
Allow me
If you OPT to work at a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then you must buy health insurance.
LOL...good one.
Now...lets say you cant get a job with a company that offers health insurance? You want to, you try, none are available or none will hire you.
Then you take personal responsibility for your situation and for the betterment of your family.
I thought you guys were big on responsibility?
LOL...good one.
Now...lets say you cant get a job with a company that offers health insurance? You want to, you try, none are available or none will hire you.
Then you take personal responsibility for your situation and for the betterment of your family.
I thought you guys were big on responsibility?
Sure, then let's take it a step further... if you are so irresponsible as to not prepare yourself for life, and have kids that you cannot support, let's fine you.
If you are so irresponsible that you don't keep up with your skill set, and get laid off, let's fine you.
If you are so irresponsible as to engage in risky behavior that causes you to contract HIV, let's fine you.
If you are so irresponsible as to take out loans you cannot pay, lets fine you.
Palease..... you folks are all about rewarding irresponsibility... and spare us the "personal responsibility" speeches as you know nothing of the subject. This is all about regulating and controlling the population at large.
You do know that government health care was a central pillar of Nationalsozialismus, right?
I hope Ginsberg doesn't croke while Obama is in office, but even if she does, he can't pick worse.
Again, that's dangerously naive
Here's the key legal question: What is a "requirement"?
When the federal government imposes a requirement, it also imposes a penalty for failing to comply. This may be a civil fine, or in more serious cases it may be a criminal penalty. For example, you are required not to counterfeit U.S. money. If you do, you can be punished with prison time.
There are only certain things that the federal government is authorized to "require" in this sense, but it can issue "requirements" without any penalty attached for whatever it may please. Congress could, for example, "require" that everyone wear pink shorts on Sundays, as long as it attached no penalty for failing to do so. This would amount, in effect, to a resolution of Congress expressing an opinion without force of law. Any case brought before the courts arguing that the law was unconstitutional would be dismissed for lack of standing in that the plaintiff suffered no harm from the law.
The individual mandate falls into a gray area. It is a requirement without criminal penalty and technically without civil penalty. Instead, Congress levies a tax on those who choose to buy health insurance; or, it could be argued, levies a tax on everyone and includes an exemption for those who DO have health insurance. Congress clearly does have the authority to lay and collect taxes.
The question before the court will be whether this amounts to regulation by the back door such as has been struck down in the past, when the government has tried to use its tax and spend powers to create penalties or incentives for compliance with regulations it had no authority to issue. It's very much an open question.
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that many provisions of the ACA are very popular and will be demanded by the people, even though the individual mandate is not. If the mandate is struck down, and if that makes the ACA unworkable, we may well create the possibility of a single-payer system, especially if things get as bad thereafter as some predict.
Beware of what you ask for.
The thing that bothers me most about this whole 'mandate' debate is that there are probably only a half-dozen or so of us here that would be railing against it regardless of which party passed it. Most of you partisan line toe tappers that are screaming the loudest would be defending it if the republicans did something similar. And likewise, all you Obama rump swabs that are defending it would be shitting all over yourselves if the republicans did it. You know who you are and you're all fucking douchewagons, the whole lot of you.
