Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[loosecannon]

This is not exactly deceiving the people. This is doing harm to at least our diplomacy, if not more.

The information leaked reveals deceit on the part of the government.

And whether or not it is doing harm it does not appear to be illegal under our law's traditional interpretations.

The courts will have to create a new interpretation of our law, or pass a new law, to get a conviction. Which is possible.

 

[loosecannon]

It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.

And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.

Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.

OK, thanks. So there are compelling reasons to fast track a judgement that will stand, likely a SC ruling or a SC nod on a lower court's ruling.

Considering the appeal process how long will it take to get this settled?

 

[goldcatt]

It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.

And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.

Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.

OK, thanks. So there are compelling reasons to fast track a judgement that will stand, likely a SC ruling or a SC nod on a lower court's ruling.

Considering the appeal process how long will it take to get this settled?

I'm not sure he really cares whether it will stand, considering all of his references to it being an issue of first impression. He knows for a fact his is not the last word.

As to how long it will take to settle, it's anybody's guess. The next step will be the appeal to the 4th Circuit, that's automatically granted. Under the procedural rules it will take a few months for the briefs to be filed, then the court will hear motions and accept briefs from friends of the court. Then they have to hear oral arguments, in this appeal before that 3-judge panel, then they deliberate and write the opinion. A lot depends on how full their docket is to schedule motions and arguments as well as release the opinion. Could be a year, could be more, could be less. If the issues and arguments in the two VA cases are similar enough, the Court may combine them into one case and issue one joint opinion to save time.

MI isn't in the same Circuit, so that case will have to go through the process in the 6th Circuit. With maybe the same or maybe a different result, and probably on a different time table because of the different docket.

Then the loser in each case has to appeal to their respective Circuit for an "en banc" hearing before the entire Court rather than just a panel. If the Circuits want to fast track it to SCOTUS, they might deny it. If not, the case gets reheard and another opinion released.

Then and only then, after all options have been exhausted, can the losers at the Circuit level petition SCOTUS to hear the case. And that's just the petition for cert, it takes time to file supporting info, have the petition heard in conference, then submit briefs and go through that whole process all over again. So it's a process that can take quite a bit of time, even if it's "fast tracked". Worst case, 3 years or more.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what's everybody doing with all the money they're saving from switching to ObamaCare?

Are the costs bending down or bending you over?

 

[Ragnar]

Via Hot Air and AmSpec, on the issue of severability...

Breaking: Federal judge rules ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional; Update: Bill argues Congressional power without “logical limitation” Hot Air

Update II: Still waiting for more data from the opinion, but several commenters have mentioned the lack of a severability clause in ObamaCare to argue that this decision would invalidate the entire bill. Not so fast, wrote David Catron at American Spectator last week:

This is probably why the White House has made so much of recent rulings by U.S. District Judges George Steeh and Norman Moon, Clinton appointees who dismissed relatively inconsequential anti-PPACA lawsuits. The administration knows, of course, that the Virginia case presents a far more serious threat than either of these cases. It has already survived a motion to dismiss and it was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the famous “rocket docket” from which important cases are expeditiously launched to the U.S. Court of Appeals and beyond. As Judge Hudson put it during the October hearing, “[T]his is only one brief stop on the way to the United States Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, if he rules in favor of Virginia, the administration will no doubt claim it is ahead two-to-one.

The jumpiness of the White House notwithstanding, it is not a given that Judge Hudson will strike down the entire law. He has shown skepticism about the mandate, but that issue is relatively straightforward compared to the severability question. On the mandate, he can follow the example of Judges Steeh and Moon, who held that the decision notto engage in economic activity somehow constitutes “commerce” as the word is used in the Constitution, or he can rule that such reasoning does too much violence to the intent of the founders. On severability, Hudson’s choices are more numerous and the legal precedents are less auspicious. In fact, the Supreme Court recently invalidated an important part of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting law, which contains no severability clause, while leaving the rest of its provisions in place.

It’s also a given that the Supreme Court will wind up deciding this, so any talk of severability at this point is academic.

The American Spectator : Of Severability and Sins of Omission

Read this whole thread and found a lot of interesting thoughts on this subject "severability" being among the most interesting of all to me. (one of the non-lawyers lol) In any case, it's going to be fun watching this stuff go forward through the system. Unlike Congress, the courts have to read and think about the laws they deal with. That leads to much better debate.

 

[Ragnar]

From the same HA link above...

Update V: Hudson hits the nail on the head with this:

Hudson rejected the government’s argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

“Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions,” Hudson wrote. “This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation” and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Hudson — perhaps not inadvertently — just described the progressive agenda in a single sentence, and why the Constitution forbids it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

They both pick and choose from it. The left extrapolates the Commerce Clause to mean that the federal government has the right to force us to buy health insurance, but when it comes to the Second Amendment? Well, there is just no possible way it could mean we all have the right to own a gun.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?

Any decision made by politicians that takes away the freedom to make choices for ourselves is an infringement of our freedoms period, whether that be forcing us to wear a seat belt or telling us who we can or can't marry. I don't differentiate between them or view freedoms in terms of degrees.

 

[Londoner]

During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). The old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change organically, according to it's own bottom-up rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.

Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They were determined to break the New Deal come hell or high water. Burkean Conservatism would be replaced by Movement Conservatism. Over the next 30 years they would eliminate everything the government did for the Middle Class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. They expressed a desire to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting government in terrible debt (in order to starve the beast and choke Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.

Here is a dirty little secret about Reaganism: the historically large deficits caused by tax cuts & defense spending was intentional, that is, the point of the Reagan Revolution was to put Washington in such financial trouble that eventually there would be no more money for Big Government: Social Security and Medicare.

People need to focus on the pivotal 70s when the radicals finally pushed out the moderates and created a radical movement -- a movement determined to completely overhaul government, the judiciary, and mass media. The movement sought radical top-down change -- change created and imposed by elites who would meet in William F Buckley's house, where they drafted the blueprints for magazine/TV/radio and university activism. The right would not only change the way government worked, but how people thought about government. Starting in the 70s they funneled money into think tanks, publishing groups, political action committees, and mass media on a level unlike anything seen before. Their strategy was to permeate every element of America institutionality -- from regulatory and judicial bodies, to congress and the media -- with hard-line conservatives. They wanted to create a perfect synergy between business and government, so corporations could fund (staff) government and buy legislation.

Their goal was also to pack the courts so they could stop Liberal legislation, should any get past their net.

They were successful. Now, when they don't like legislation, they have an army of talking heads who wage an information war against it. Matt Drudge employs a small city of researches who comb through every inch of hyperspace looking for an angle. The machine is powerful: it places the well-meaning voter in a fog of mushroom clouds, WMDs, gay agendas, illegals, liberals, terrorists, sin, drugs, birth certificate, baby killers, Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!, Osama! Saddam! Osama!, death panel! death panel! death panel FOX News Terror Alerts ordered by Bush to distract people from the derivative time bomb being constructed over the economy. The machine repeats strategic talking points over and over, as the white middle aged man clutches his steering wheel in rage. Point is: the right, after 30 years of concentrated investment into media, now has direct access to American opinion, and they have the most powerful funding advantage known to man: business. They left is done.

They also have the judiciary, from the local level to the Supreme court. They also have the regulatory body, which is populated by business insiders.

What happens when the Democrats pass a law which tries to help the non-wealthy. The right calls it unconstitutional. They have the power to overturn ANYTHING, from health care to presidential elections.

People, if you think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet. America is in the middle of a protracted Coup d'etat that started in 1980. The goal is to replace the great postwar middle class with a new uber-wealthy class. America is becoming like the 3rd world with concentrated pools of wealth surrounded by exploding poverty. The majority of wealth doesn't reach the real economy -- which is being starved. Eventually, the uber-wealthy will all live in hyper-secure self-sufficient "compounds". These compounds will have their own food/security/education/health care/entertainment/etc. On the other side of the compound-wall there will exist a dying public sphere with decaying cities, filth, crime, and total poverty. The federal government will be irrelevant, replaced by private enclaves of pure wealth.

Post middle class America is going to look much different. Movement Conservatism is replacing a great nation with a neoliberal dystopia. They can get rid of any law they don't like. Anything Washington does for the non-wealthy will be killed in the crib. The game is over.

 

[Avatar4321]

In laymen terms.

The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.

The government doesn't comprehend the idea that the objective isn't power. If they wanted to lower costs, this bill wouldn't have been passed because we know it increases costs. Heck it already is increasing costs and the bill isnt even implemented in it's fullness.

Not to mention the borrowed spending adding to the inflation rate.

No. This bill needs to be thrown on the scrap heap. And if the Federal government wants to do anything with health care they can do two things:

1) Permit interstate shopping for insurance.
2) Get the heck out of everything else.

Everything else is unconstitutional and makes the problems worse.

 

[loosecannon]

It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.

And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.

Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.

OK, thanks. So there are compelling reasons to fast track a judgement that will stand, likely a SC ruling or a SC nod on a lower court's ruling.

Considering the appeal process how long will it take to get this settled?

I'm not sure he really cares whether it will stand, considering all of his references to it being an issue of first impression. He knows for a fact his is not the last word.

As to how long it will take to settle, it's anybody's guess. The next step will be the appeal to the 4th Circuit, that's automatically granted. Under the procedural rules it will take a few months for the briefs to be filed, then the court will hear motions and accept briefs from friends of the court. Then they have to hear oral arguments, in this appeal before that 3-judge panel, then they deliberate and write the opinion. A lot depends on how full their docket is to schedule motions and arguments as well as release the opinion. Could be a year, could be more, could be less. If the issues and arguments in the two VA cases are similar enough, the Court may combine them into one case and issue one joint opinion to save time.

MI isn't in the same Circuit, so that case will have to go through the process in the 6th Circuit. With maybe the same or maybe a different result, and probably on a different time table because of the different docket.

Then the loser in each case has to appeal to their respective Circuit for an "en banc" hearing before the entire Court rather than just a panel. If the Circuits want to fast track it to SCOTUS, they might deny it. If not, the case gets reheard and another opinion released.

Then and only then, after all options have been exhausted, can the losers at the Circuit level petition SCOTUS to hear the case. And that's just the petition for cert, it takes time to file supporting info, have the petition heard in conference, then submit briefs and go through that whole process all over again. So it's a process that can take quite a bit of time, even if it's "fast tracked". Worst case, 3 years or more.

That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). They old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change organically, according to it's own bottom-up rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.

Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They wanted to give a New Deal not to lower classes, but to the upper class. Burkean Conservatism evolved into Movement Conservatism. Their goal was to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting it in terrible debt (in order to starve the beast and chose Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.

And so . . the right created a game plan for overhauling government, the judiciary, and mass media. Their goal was to change the way government works, and the way people think about government. Their goal was radical change. They funneled money into think tanks and mass media. Their strategy was to fill the regulatory, judicial, and media structures with hard-line conservatives.

They were successful. Now, when they don't like legislation, they have an army of talking heads who endlessly repeat a particular narrative. They place the well-meaning voter in a fog of mushroom clouds. WMD, gay agenda, illegals, liberals, terrorists, sin, drugs, birth certificate, baby killers, Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!, Osama! Saddam! Osama!, and death panel! death panel! death panel! They say it over and over, as the white middle aged man clutches his steering wheel in rage. Point is: the right, after 30 years of concentrated investment into media, has direct access to American opinion, and they have the most powerful funding advantage known to man: business.

They also have the judiciary, from the local level to the Supreme court. They also have the regulatory body, which is populated by business insiders.

What happens when the Democrats pass a law which tries to help the non-wealthy. The right calls it unconstitutional. They have the power to overturn ANYTHING, from health care to presidential elections.

People, if you think Bush V Gore or the Supreme Courts eventual repeal of Health Care represents dangerous, anti-Democratic activism, you ain't seen nothing yet. America is in the middle of a protracted Coup d'etat that started in 1980. The goal is to replace the great postwar middle class with a new uber-wealthy class. America is becoming like the 3rd world with concentrated pools of insane wealth surrounded by exploding poverty. Eventually, the uber-wealthy will all live in hyper-secure self-sufficient "compounds" which have their own food/security/education/health care/entertainment = everything. On the other side of the compound-wall there will exist a dying public sphere with decaying cities, filth, crime, and total poverty. The federal government will be irrelevant, replaced by private enclaves.

Post middle class America is going to look much different. Movement Conservatism is replacing a great nation with a neoliberal dystopia. They can get rid of any law they don't like. Anything Washington does for the non-wealthy will be killed in the crib. The game is over.

Yeah it's all a right wing conspiracy. We are very clever by arguing that the Interestate commerce clause means exactly what it says.

You know, you could just pass constitutional legislation. You know make real arguments on why your positions are superior. Maybe actually help those poor people you claim you are helping instead of hurting them with the legislation you claim is going to help them so much and telling people its the thought that counts not the reality of the situation.

The Republic needs to be restored. And it wont be by pretending that the Constitution is meaningless.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.

I'm talking about Medicaid. That's funded through general tax revenue at the state and federal level, which is a bit different than premium-based insurance pools.

the exchanges

Exchanges aren't a government plan, they're a marketplace in which private plans compete.

The states already are resisting the mandate to erect these exchanges and support them without compensation. If it is a futile gesture with low unpredictable participation they will resist much more, being broke and all...

Only two states have shown any resistance to building exchanges thus far (and one of them, Minnesota, is almost certain to reverse that position under its new governor). Some states may try to reverse their position as leadership changes--I fully expect mine to openly contemplate it, if not actually try to--but that's a philosophical/political stance. However, again, any state that worries about sustainability is free to cede control of their state's exchange to the federal government. It'll be interesting to see how many conservative state policymakers make that choice.

If they wanted to lower costs, this bill wouldn't have been passed because we know it increases costs. [...]

1) Permit interstate shopping for insurance.

How many times must it be said? Interstate purchasing by itself doesn't inherently lower costs Depending on the circumstances of your provider market, it can (and probably will) raise your premiums. The only offsetting factor is that it allows insurers to game risk pools ("deregulation") by ejecting or shifting costs to those with medical issues. If that's what you're betting on for cost control, you're fighting a losing battle.

 

[Ragnar]

During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). The old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change organically, according to it's own bottom-up rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.

Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They wanted to give a New Deal not to lower classes, but to the upper class. Burkean Conservatism evolved into Movement Conservatism. Their goal was to eliminate everything the government was doing for the Middle Class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Their goal was to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting government in terrible debt (in order to starve the beast and choke Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.

And so . . the right created a game plan for overhauling government, the judiciary, and mass media. Their goal was not only to change the way government worked, but how people thought about government. Their goal was radical change. Starting in the 70s, they funneled money into think tanks, mass media, pro-business lobbying groups on a level unlike anything seen before. Their strategy was to fill the regulatory, judicial, and media structures with hard-line conservatives. Their goal was to create a perfect synergy between business and government, so corporation could fund (staff) government and buy legislation. Their goal was also to pack the courts so they could stop Liberal legislation, should any get past their net.

They were successful. Now, when they don't like legislation, they have an army of talking heads who endlessly repeat a particular narrative. They place the well-meaning voter in a fog of mushroom clouds. WMD, gay agenda, illegals, liberals, terrorists, sin, drugs, birth certificate, baby killers, Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!, Osama! Saddam! Osama!, and death panel! death panel! death panel! They say it over and over, as the white middle aged man clutches his steering wheel in rage. Point is: the right, after 30 years of concentrated investment into media, has direct access to American opinion, and they have the most powerful funding advantage known to man: business.

They also have the judiciary, from the local level to the Supreme court. They also have the regulatory body, which is populated by business insiders.

What happens when the Democrats pass a law which tries to help the non-wealthy. The right calls it unconstitutional. They have the power to overturn ANYTHING, from health care to presidential elections.

People, if you think Bush V Gore or the Supreme Courts eventual repeal of Health Care represents dangerous, anti-Democratic activism, you ain't seen nothing yet. America is in the middle of a protracted Coup d'etat that started in 1980. The goal is to replace the great postwar middle class with a new uber-wealthy class. America is becoming like the 3rd world with concentrated pools of insane wealth surrounded by exploding poverty. Eventually, the uber-wealthy will all live in hyper-secure self-sufficient "compounds" which have their own food/security/education/health care/entertainment = everything. On the other side of the compound-wall there will exist a dying public sphere with decaying cities, filth, crime, and total poverty. The federal government will be irrelevant, replaced by private enclaves.

Post middle class America is going to look much different. Movement Conservatism is replacing a great nation with a neoliberal dystopia. They can get rid of any law they don't like. Anything Washington does for the non-wealthy will be killed in the crib. The game is over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Information isn't property. Passively receiving it is not an offense. Now if Assange was involved in any way in obtaining it, it's espionage. Tough call to make without more facts than we have publicly available, but IMO we have our signal the Europeans are willing to play ball in handing the guy over and keeping him out of circulation if we can just come up with evidence. He's dangerous to them too.

His general attitude is dangerous to all governments that value secrets over transparency. Their willingness to persecute him says more about them than anything he did.

There are certain secrets any government has to value above transparency, particularly where relations with other governments are concerned.

I'm a big fan of the First, but it's obvious even to me that when we assure another nation that our communications will be confidential, we have a duty to honor that commitment. We do not have a right to public access to absolutely everything for good reason.

If this while Wikileaks thing is about the need for government to keep secrets why did the Obama administration and the Justice Department wait until the leaks embarrassed Obama before trying to find some obscure law to prosecute Assange? Why did until they had wait until egg on their face they before pressuring web sites to take down legal content, and force ask PayPal to stop accepting donations?

The better question to be asking is, if we are assuring other nations our communications are confidential, why do 3 million people, including low level military analysts on the front line, have access to it? Another point, the communications that were leaked were all internal State Department communications, not communications between us and anyone else. That explains why they were more embarrassing than damaging, and why Obama got upset. Narcissists hate to be embarrassed.

 

[Liability]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

WELL before your post, I had already provided the Court's decision. http://www.usmessageboard.com/3082768-post81.html

You're welcome!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ten pages and, unless I've missed it, no one has noted that the health care reform law has not been ruled unconstitutional. Not only did Hudson specifically decline to halt implementation of the law, he rejected the plaintiff's request that he rule the entire law unconstitutional. Instead, he ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and specifically severed it from the rest of the law, which survives intact. From a court that was obviously going to rule against the ACA, this is a surprisingly favorable ruling.

I am pretty sure someone pointed that out.

Didn't the White House recently say something about the ACA not being viable without the mandate because certain parts of it, like the requirement to cover preexisting conditions, are inextricably linked to it?

 

[Londoner]

This is our future. Neoliberal dystopia. Snow Crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[loosecannon]

Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.

I'm talking about Medicaid. That's funded through general tax revenue at the state and federal level, which is a bit different than premium-based insurance pools.

You don't understand the core mission of the healthcare legislation at all.

The healthcare reform legislation sought to subsidize existing medicare and medicaid, which both underpay practicioners and the health care industry, by increasing the pool of patients who overpaid, hence:

>The complete lack of effort to reduce aggregate healthy care costs

>the necessary inclusion of all citizens including the young and healthy who don't need much care in the system

>the advertised and otherwise illogical claims to saving billions of $ on future medicare expenses

>the unchallenged immediate increases in health care insurance for paying consumers once the legislation passed

>the openly disclosed discussion of a kind of premium parity in which the premiums for the most expensive patients would be reduced below market standards while the young and healthy would be forced to pay rates above the market value of their care

It is a subsidy scam in which the medical care industries and medical insurance industries agree to take losses on medicare/medicaid and high risk patients in exchange for more lucrative patient participants being forced to enter the system and pay more for coverage and therefore care than their health care requirements demand.

It's just a way to tax the young and healthy to pay for health care for the poor and unhealthy.

If there was any other agenda then efforts would have been taken to insure that cost reduction was a part of the bill, and none were, except in the case of insurance provided by the feds.

 

[Greenbeard]

The healthcare reform legislation sought to subsidize existing medicare and medicaid, which both underpay practicioners and the health care industry, by increasing the pool of patients who overpaid, hence:

This is nonsense on its face. ACA reduces the ranks of the uninsured by 32 million by the end of the decade. It does so by granting 16 million people Medicaid eligibility; the other 16 million will enter health insurance exchanges (with at least another 8 million trickling in from current non-group insurance). How many exchange enrollees will be unsubsidized? About 5 million.

Obviously the goal of ACA is to subsidize coverage to vastly increase the insured population. But if you think that's done by siphoning dollars through private insurance premiums, you're way off. It's done the old fashioned way: through actual public subsidies (either via Medicaid coverage or refundable tax credits available to purchasers in the exchange). And in the long run most of that money will come from limiting the tax exclusion for group insurance, just as the exchange subsidies are limited.

>The complete lack of effort to reduce aggregate healthy care costs

It sounds like something on your wish list didn't make it into the law.

>the necessary inclusion of all citizens including the young and healthy who don't need much care in the system

The young may buy catastrophic coverage. The mandate doesn't exist to entice them into higher-premium comprehensive coverage. It exists to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy guaranteed-issue, community-rated insurance policies.

>the advertised and otherwise illogical claims to saving billions of $ on future medicare expenses

The Medicare-related savings are based on three things: 1) smaller market basket updates to account for presumed productivity gains through the delivery system reforms, 2) the reduction in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, and 3) the reduction in DSH payments as the number of uninsured people falls. What does that amount to? Fewer expenditures than the baseline would anticipate.

>the unchallenged immediate increases in health care insurance for paying consumers once the legislation passed

This is getting silly.

>the openly disclosed discussion of a kind of premium parity in which the premiums for the most expensive patients would be reduced below market standards while the young and healthy would be forced to pay rates above the market value of their care

If premiums were equal to the value of care consumed for every member of an insurance pool, there would be no need to have an insurance pool at all. Insurance pools are inherently resource transfers. Under the ACA, risk adjustment between pools replaces rating within pools. Most people consider that to be a more equitable system (and for good reason--it is).

It's just a way to tax the young and healthy to pay for health care for the poor and unhealthy.

You're describing health insurance, period.

 

[boedicca]

He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.

He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability. The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.

I'm sorry, but that's just not the case.

First, a summary judgment does not mean it was a summary hearing. It is a specific term for a specific type of final order handed out by the court after hearing all the facts and determining as a matter of law that there is only one possible outcome. The determinations of fact are not a material issue, either because there is no disagreement as in this case or because they simply don't matter.

I didn't say it was a summary hearing.

The judge himself in his ruling states that he did not evaluate the entire bill, just a few parts having to do with the individual mandate. The "severability" is due to the limited review, not due to the merits of the entire bill.

If those who support the entire bill wish to cling to the fact that he didn't fully review the entire bill in order to give themselves comfort, so be it.