patrick.net

ChrisV says

I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity

Actually they don't. Just pay the extra "I'm Stupid!" tax instead and you can remain outside the medical insurance system. Good luck with that.

This is like not wearing your seatbelt. You're free to do so, but it will cost you, perhaps via a trip out the side window.

I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option

The point of the mandate is to break the adverse selection / moral hazard logjam of the current system.

The public option would be nice but there's it's no magic program that's going to lower costs. BCBS has much more negotiating power than a public option.

Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.

Very true, so we will need further government intervention in the market eventually.

But with the hyper-political arrangements we have today, we'll be lucky to get ObamaCare. Gonna depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on, alas.

Vicente says

So why hasn’t it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

States are bound by their own Constitutions, as is the Fed with its.

RayAmerica says

At least one Federal Judge understands the Constitution. Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional. This ruling is a step in the right direction in getting Obamacare overturned.

Yes. And next we need to overrule mandatory auto liability insurance.

It's the same thing basically. People without health insurance are making others liable should they require some sort of catastrophic care.

Seriously though, if we don't have mandated insurance, then the only other sensible option is to have Medicare for all. Wth, Medicare pays for the most expensive stuff already anyway.

When people cite our poor care compared to other countries, you should know the cause: It's one more instance of stupid easy to manipulate Americans getting pushed around by corporations.

marcus says

Yes. And next we need to overrule mandatory auto liability insurance.
It’s the same thing basically.

This is the same leftist dribble that I hear over and over again. The two are not even remotely close to being the same. Obtaining a driver's license is a PRIVALAGE granted by the state that you live in ... it is NOT a RIGHT. If you doubt this, ask any law enforcement officer or judge. If you want to opt out of buying auto insurance you can. It's your decision whether or not to drive, it is not being forced on you. Furthermore, the fines for being caught without auto insurance are relatively small. Nice try Marcus, but you'll need to come up with a better illustration.

Troy says

ChrisV says

I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity

Actually they don’t. Just pay the extra “I’m Stupid!” tax instead and you can remain outside the medical insurance system. Good luck with that.
This is like not wearing your seatbelt. You’re free to do so, but it will cost you, perhaps via a trip out the side window.
I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option
The point of the mandate is to break the adverse selection / moral hazard logjam of the current system.
The public option would be nice but there’s it’s no magic program that’s going to lower costs. BCBS has much more negotiating power than a public option.
Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.
Very true, so we will need further government intervention in the market eventually.
But with the hyper-political arrangements we have today, we’ll be lucky to get ObamaCare. Gonna depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on, alas.

The whole reform the way it is now it's just going to drive up costs. My wife works for a health insurance company so I'm telling you the unfiltered unbiased reality which you will never see on television or spoken by a politician. Costs will be going up, and going up a LOT.

Key terms:
Provider Network (PN) - a chain of hospitals and doctors that negotiate in a group. Think of it as a union. For example in San Diego there is only one PN which is "Scripps" and their prices are much higher than Los Angles because there is no competition.
Insurance Company - self explanatory.

This is how every single insurance negotiation goes between an insurance company and a PN:
PN: We are increasing our prices by 40% next year.
Insurance: we cant pass on that much of a cost.
.... after all the haggling they settle anywhere from 15% to 20% increases which gets spread out to all insured. Just so you know, minimum increase is 12% which is considered the "trend".

This happens every year, and reform did nothing to change this. Prices will be only going up with no single payer system to force hospitals to take less. And now insurance prices will also have to include million dollar (yes no exaggeration, million dollar claims [per patient] for hemophilia, cancer, diabetes, etc..) for preexisting conditions.

Reform did a few good things, they stopped some practices that were terrible and it did limit insurance profits. But that is only half of the problem, literally just half. As the reform did nothing about costs, because it has no single payer system and nothing to cap how much PN's can increase their prices.

A brief but good synopsis of Judge Hudson's ruling as provided by the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-comes-up-against-the-constitution/

RayAmerica says

A brief but good synopsis of Judge Hudson’s ruling as provided by the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-comes-up-against-the-constitution/

Yes, because Cato institute is so highly regarded as an unbiased reporter of events....

tatupu70 says

Yes, because Cato institute is so highly regarded as an unbiased reporter of events….

I get it. You have a prejudice against Cato, so EVERYTHING they say must be false? Right? Thank you for the excellent illustration of the closed mind of the left. I'll bet you were one of the several dozen listeners to "Air America" before it went bankrupt.

Ray, you're a laugh riot. If Cato (libertarian think tank) is beyond reproach, then so must be the the DailyKos take on the ruling, referencing Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Finally, the right finds someone willing to take its side on health care reform. After two judges ruled to uphold it, and 14 dismissed challenges to it, a district judge out of Virginia rules part of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. In our third story, he just happens to own part of a Republican strategy firm that advocated against health care reform. The company, which took 9,000 dollars this year from one of its clients, the attorney general who filed the case on which this judge just ruled.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/14/928990/-Dean:-Hudson-ruling-doesnt-threaten-health-reform

shrekgrinch says

If SCOTUS rules for the mandate…then the entire concept of the federal government having enumerated powers iwill be shot to hell. That is the illogical conclusion of Wickard vs. Fillburn and similar case law that the Supremes will have to deal with.

Precisely what I believe is behind the insane, unpopular push for this program. This is a back door move for power and control over the American people. The radical left has always held the original intent of the Constitution in disdain (as fully illustrated by FDR). If this were to go through, literally, you can say goodbye to this nation as far as a constitutional republic goes. There will never be any further serious arguments in the future using the Constitution as far as original intent is concerned. History has proven that once freedom is relinquished to centralized power, it is never fully restored without an awful lot of human suffering. And even then, it is never the same as it once was.

RayAmerica says

This is a back door move for power and control over the American people.

Because clearly you know, it couldn't be about HEALTH CARE, because God knows that's not an issue anyone in this country actually is concerned about. It's good that we have you here to see through these veils. How does this tie together with flouridation of our water supply General Turgeson?

Vicente says

How does this tie together with flouridation of our water supply General Turgeson?

Laugh all you want. When the government gains more centralized power, the cost is always individual freedom. Healthcare represents 1/6 of our entire economy, and yet, you are willing to give this power to the same government that orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin, maneuvered Japan into attacking us (predictably via FDR's embargo of the island nation), WMDs in Iraq, "fighting" the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. etc. Just keep putting all your faith and trust in the government Vincente, they have proven they are so worthy.

shrekgrinch says

They just are following the path of least resistance. As far as constitutions go, ours has one of the most difficult amendment procedures in place. Basically, in order for an amendment to pass and ratify, a super-majority of geographical support (the states) have to go along with that.
It’s much easier to just dream up BS like ‘living document’ and stack the courts with judges who will play along, like that other Clinton-appointee who ruled it constitutional basically because the judge thinks the feds can do whatever the hell they like. That Affirmative Action Retard Justice Sonja is of the same caliber.
It is quite a rational strategy for the Left and you can’t argue that it hasn’t worked, because it has. What is surprising is that one can find a means of binding the word ‘rational’ with ‘Left’ in any context. I know, its hard to accept– but facts are facts.

Very well stated ... I agree 100%. What the left refuses to recognize is that Hitler did similar things in Germany. He gained "temporary" dictatorial powers (Chavez is attempting the exact same thing right now) via the "Enabling Act of 1933," legally passed through the Reichstag. Hitler correctly understood the German people in that, the Germans notoriously believed in legal authority. It was only after it was too late to do anything about it that they realized their freedoms had vanished. FDR (another totalitarian) attempted to stack the court in order to achieve what he knew was unconstitutional. A case in point is Schechter v. United States which challenged FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act on Constitutional grounds. Amazingly, this small Kosher slaughterhouse took FDR and the New Deal all the way to the Supreme Court .... and won. We need more of these types of patriots to come to the aid of our country before it is too late, and we find, like the Germans did, that freedom is not easily won back once it is lost.

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/1323

RayAmerica says

Laugh all you want.

Oh believe me I laugh plenty. You have brought me the LIGHT and proved to me that government does not involve consent of the governed, and is in fact part of some vast conspiracy. We'll all end up herded into FEMA death camps and when we've worked our share building the cathedral to Communism, we'll be roasted over fires to feed our alien masters.

Vicente says

Oh believe me I laugh plenty. You have brought me the LIGHT and proved to me that government does not involve consent of the governed, and is in fact part of some vast conspiracy. We’ll all end up herded into FEMA death camps and when we’ve worked our share building the cathedral to Communism, we’ll be roasted over fires to feed our alien masters.

Germany was the most educated nation in Europe. It also can be argued that it was far more advanced culturally than our own. And yet, it produced Hitler and the Nazis. What makes you think such a thing could never happen here? I have known many people that lived under Stalin and the Iron Curtain that immigrated here and became American citizens. The one common sentiment they have expressed over and over again is that America is making the same mistakes that Russia and Europe made prior to totalitarianism. I guess these people, that lived it, are all fools and you're the genius.

RayAmerica says

all fools and you’re the genius.

Any fool can say:

Hitler liked Disney, I mean a *lot*.
People here love Disney and let it get away with murder
Oh noes Nazis!

Because some numbskull somewhere can draw a bunch of boxes connecting this to that, and hey this is sorta like that and thefore NAZI, doesn't prove anything beyond that Glenn Beck will always have an audience.

Astoundingly enough there are countries living under the horror of universal healthcare for decades without gassing undesirables. Their restraint against their natural desire to herd the populace into death camps, flies uncomfortably in the face of people who see totalitarians in all their enemies, but of course never in themselves. It's astounding the Canadians aren't streaming over the border with bullets whizzing overhead, they've had since what the late '40s for the "nanny state" to blossom into it's natural conclusion of Dachau or Stalin's manufactured famines.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Reform did a few good things, they stopped some practices that were terrible and it did limit insurance profits. But that is only half of the problem, literally just half. As the reform did nothing about costs, because it has no single payer system and nothing to cap how much PN’s can increase their prices.

I fully agree with this. Also, since the insurers are now limited to 80-85% MLRs, it's in their interest that costs go up -- every 10% cost rise is another 1.5% of profit they can skim.

Let's face it, the way to get the cost of health care down is to maximize the freedom of private entities to bribe the givernment to let them have a big piece of the pie, even though they don't provide the actual health care. This is freedom. This is the American way that makes me so proud.

About fascism, it's surprising to me that my intuition tells me something so different than what others get from their intuition. Intuition being sort of the sum total of how life experience, logic and emotions inform us.

When I ask myself, who is more likely to cause the government to become fascist, ultimately depriving us of our liberty and quality of life ?

Will it be the big money corporate interests, the super wealthy, and the military industrial complex ?

Or will it the naive lefties who think (big) government can be more focused on services for the ordinary people (but no, not so much that they have no motivation to work).

MY intuition tells me to fear the former destroying this country. Surprisingly, I even see the former being the ones who might destroy the economy. How is it that others can see things so differently ? Mind control ?

The "must buy insurance provision" is not constitutional because it simply forces us all to buy a product from a private entity, which has absolutely 0 guarantees of lowered costs/prices. If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we'll be all forced to pay these too.

Without public option this one provision of the law isn't constitutional at all.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

The “must buy insurance provision” is not constitutional because it simply forces us all to buy a product from a private entity, which has absolutely 0 guarantees of lowered costs/prices. If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

Excellent point. What guarantee is there that this won't happen? The relationship between the insurance companies and our politicians is very cozy. In fact, the insurance industry has one of the largest and most powerful lobbies in Washington.

elliemae says

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

I don't believe he does. Probably has a solid gold toilet from his Holy Shit.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

This assertion is wrong for a number of reasons.

For one, insurers will have to pay out 80-85% of premiums as claims. So *they* can't jack up rates (but providers can).

Also nobody HAS to buy insurance. They can pay the "I'm Stupid" tax instead, which isn't that much a burden compared to current rates, let alone your +300% tomorrow scenario.

There is also the fact that actual cash outgo will be capped at 10.2% of household income due to subsidies. This will cushion all rising health costs for the bottom 80% of America, at the expense of the top 20% who pay most of the federal income taxes.

Of course, this whole thing is going to be moot as the top 20% of the country are now in a cold war with the rest, and this is going to end very badly.

Troy says

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

This assertion is wrong for a number of reasons.
For one, insurers will have to pay out 80-85% of premiums as claims. So *they* can’t jack up rates (but providers can).
Also nobody HAS to buy insurance. They can pay the “I’m Stupid” tax instead, which isn’t that much a burden compared to current rates, let alone your +300% tomorrow scenario.
There is also the fact that actual cash outgo will be capped at 10.2% of household income due to subsidies. This will cushion all rising health costs for the bottom 80% of America, at the expense of the top 20% who pay most of the federal income taxes.
Of course, this whole thing is going to be moot as the top 20% of the country are now in a cold war with the rest, and this is going to end very badly.

Troy, but the way they calculate subsidies will hit big cities unfairly. If you live in LA or NY or any other major city where cost of living is high you will get no subsidy at all, you'll be in that "sweet" spot where you get no benefits but pay for others to have them without actually being able to afford it yourself (because of the high cost of living which isn't factored into the formula).

Also insurance can still increase premiums, if they have to pay 80 to 85% in claims does not mean they can't increase prices or make a deal with the provider network to do so. They are in business to make money after all.

Now if reform put caps on provider network price increases as well, we would have something that would truly control the costs.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If you live in LA or NY or any other major city where cost of living is high you will get no subsidy at all

The subsidies end at $90K/yr household income. These people -- you and me I assume -- should have insurance anyway, and I am perfectly happy with paying more insurance for more universal access to the system, because I consider health care a universal right.

If it doesn't work down the road then we will have to fix it. We can do that, theoretically.

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Just curious. Is that a "right" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

RayAmerica says

Just curious. Is that a “right” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Is owning a home a "universal right?" What about owning a car? Where exactly do you draw the line in your Utopia?

RayAmerica says

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Is owning a home a “universal right?” What about owning a car? Where exactly do you draw the line in your Utopia?

Ray I think over time everything will be a right. Soon healthcare, over time it will be other things too. The more succesful a nation becomes the more entitlements it will have.

Eventually human race will have robots that will be able to do all the work and even reason enough to improve their work. At that point everything will be a right. (It is a long ways away, but it's the goal of humanity)

I think it's my right to have my own reality show. But for now attention-whoring on Facebook will have to suffice.

shrekgrinch says

nor can they alter or suppress them — which is what ObamaCare does.

Possibly. But all this "is it constitutional" jazz is just a smokescreen. This is the same mandate & stuff that the Republicans proposed in 1993 so it can not honestly be described as a radical change. If the SCOTUS, er, Justice Kennedy decides Congress doesn't have the constitutional powers to regulate the largest sector of the economy, nor use its 16th Amendment powers in support of this, then we should simply amend the Constitution to allow the Congress to do these sorts of things.

I really can't see how any rational person would be against that. Who wants 50 different healthcare systems in this country? That's not what we formed the Union for -- we wanted friction-free ability of interstate commerce in all its forms.

Up in Alaska they tried to have their oil dividend checks pay out based on years of Alaskan residence. That was ruled to violate these interstate commerce principles.

RayAmerica says

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Is owning a home a “universal right?” What about owning a car? Where exactly do you draw the line in your Utopia?

A fair question. I simply think access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society should be this Utopia.

While "owning" a home is not a right, a right to the land and its resources certainly is.

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

A "car" is not a right, but certainly we are not free if we cannot afford to get around our communities.

As a true capitalist I see that much of what we take as the free market today is not capitalism but rent-capturing.

Capitalism involves the CREATION of new wealth. We really don't do that very well here any more. We've got too many rich people trying to get by without creating anything, just living on rents and other predatory shit.

Idaho Governor enacts an Executive Order banning Obamacare in his state. This is wonderful news for those that believe Obamacare is unconstitutional.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/27614296/detail.html

Shrek .... 100% correct.

It might not be constitutional based on the principles it was founded on. But they are the government now, they can do whatever the hell they wish.

I think it is very unconstitutional to force someone to buy a product from a private enterprise. That's a very slippery slope when it starts.

"Idaho Governor enacts an Executive Order banning Obamacare in his state. "

Why does the Idaho governor hate the US Constitution so much? Did he forget to read the Supremacy Clause? States do NOT have the right to veto federal laws.

@Troy

>"Capitalism involves the CREATION of new wealth. We really don’t do that very well here any more. We’ve got too many rich people trying to get by without creating anything, just living on rents..."

Exactly. Everyone should read this.

Troy says

I am perfectly happy with paying more insurance for more universal access to the system, because I consider health care a universal right.

I agree. One would think that it being a universal right would be self evident.

Interesting that often "pro life" people, even the radical ones are usually against universal healthcare (because that's their overlords position). That's interesting, because on the one hand, they would like to insist that a baby be born, even if to a mother who can not and probably will not soon be able to take care of herself, let alone the child, all in the name of the fetus', or zygote's "rights" and yet they will deny that child health care.

And it's not like many countries haven't already proven that a "medicare for all" system can work well.

Obama grants ObamaCare exemptions to another 204 companies, adding to the already 773 exempted companies. I guess it pays to have friends in high places:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/161203-hhs-approves-200-more-new-healthcare-reform-waivers-

"The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves."

The waivers expire in 2014 when the state exchanges come up and people can leave their shitty employer lock-in plans and buy better insurance on the open market with their subsidies.

The amount of demagoguing the Republicans are doing on what is entirely a Republican idea is really quite shameful.