# Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 31, 2011)

> A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
> 
> Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
> 
> MSNBC



We now have two judges who say it's unconstitutional and two judges who say it's not.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

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


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> 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?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

I have asked twice before, putting aside sevrability, how we would go forward minus the mandate, don't  recall getting answer. 

the money shot-

Judge Vinson-

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." 

Weigel


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

0bamacare just got smacked...

Perhaps Harry & Nancy should have read it before passing it....


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> 0bamacare just got smacked...
> 
> Perhaps Harry & Nancy should have read it before passing it....



They had to pass it first before they could know what was in it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.



Single payer was a loser.  Like you.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.
> ...



Ouch?


----------



## driveby (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.



None of those assholes have the balls to even say single payer.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

driveby said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.
> ...



Unfortunately probably true.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


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



you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> 0bamacare just got smacked...
> 
> Perhaps Harry & Nancy should have read it before passing it....



or maybe the rightwingers should know what's in it before opining? 

you know, given they keep repeating the same lies over and over.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...


"Responsible" as defined by you.

Take it up with the judge.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 31, 2011)

In a meticulous decision a federal judge ruled on a law suit by 28 states that the Health Care law is unconstitutional.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...



And you don't know a responsible jurist from an ashtray that needs cleaning.
The opinion is correct: if the bill had no severability clause then if one part is found unconstitutional then the entire bill must be.
Now get back to cleaning your ashtrays, ijit.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 31, 2011)

I should have said a "meticulously worded decision" rather than a meticulous decision.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)




----------



## CoolBreeze (Jan 31, 2011)

From what I am hearing is that it still will be going to the SC.  What was claimed unconstitutional was the insurance mandate.  Which in it's own right should kill the whole law but that is yet to be seen.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 0bamacare just got smacked...
> ...



What lies?

Apparently the authors of the bill didn't think about the Constitutional ramifications of, well, ramming it down our throats....


0bamacare is now officially *unconstitutional*...


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

CoolBreeze said:


> From what I am hearing is that it still will be going to the SC.  What was claimed unconstitutional was the insurance mandate.  Which in it's own right should kill the whole law but that is yet to be seen.



no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

you'd know that if you weren't just spewing.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Umm, no it isn't.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 0bamacare just got smacked...
> ...



We were'nt allowed to read before those asshats voted for it.

Its a bullshit law and YOU know it.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> 0bamacare just got smacked...
> 
> Perhaps Harry & Nancy should have read it before passing it....



Shush. It had to be rammed through before anyone could read it. Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

Last page....


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

The judge made an excellent decision.  One more small step in the long march to protect individual liberty.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

this has been posted already..


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

heres the whole decision. 

Vinson opinion


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

I like this:

_"*Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.* This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote._

Judge rules healthcare reform unconstitutional | Reuters


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



the law isn't unconstitjutional by any measure given prior precedent.

what lies? really?

that it's 'job killing'
that it's unconstitutional
that there are death panels.

it's a whole bunch of stupid when a bunch of idiots run on a platform of taking health coverage away from kids.

what what the hell... right?

and what i do know is vinson's decision has no basis iaw where it says that the whole bill has to be thrown out.

that's one of the dumbest comments i've ever heard a judge make.... ever.

and why is the bill officially "unconsitutional" because two lower court judges don't like it.

two do.

bfd.

you're smarter than that.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Last page....



So what about the two judges who ruled it wasn't unconstitutional? Their decisions make it official too?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 31, 2011)

> (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks)



When did deciding something on the merits, or lack thereof, rather than basing decisions on desired outcomes make someone a hack?

Sorry hun.


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2011)

merged


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


That's your opinion, but for now a federal judge says it's unconstitutional...



> what lies? really?
> 
> that it's 'job killing'
> that it's unconstitutional
> that there are death panels.


Right now, it is unconstitutional according to a federal judge...



> it's a whole bunch of stupid when a bunch of idiots run on a platform of taking health coverage away from kids.
> 
> what what the hell... right?


Ahhh...  The "Think of the children!" defense...  Well played, counsellor...



> and what i do know is vinson's decision has no basis iaw where it says that the whole bill has to be thrown out.
> 
> that's one of the dumbest comments i've ever heard a judge make.... ever.
> 
> ...


meh...  You agree with your judges and I agree with mine...

Opinions are a dime a dozen, but there is a legal document ruling it unconstitutional - tha's a FACT...



> you're smarter than that.


My intellegence has nothing to do with this ruling, thank you very much...


----------



## Jarhead (Jan 31, 2011)

Health insurance was supposed to be just that. Insurance in CASE you have a catastrophic medical situation arise.

Somewhere along the way it turned into paying for anything that has to do with your health....if I recall it was coined as "preventative" care...which was nothing more than your typical semi annual physical....

So whereas we used to pay out of pocket the few hundred dollars per visit, now it is up to the insurance company to pay it for us...

And you wonder why insurance rates skyrocketed.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

I trust Judge Vinson's opinion far more than jillian's.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Last page....
> ...



I guess you an post their decision saying it is if you like, but the one I posted says it is unconstitutional....


----------



## theHawk (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
> >
> ...



Of course it's unconstitutional, just like the whole Obama Presidency.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



whose taking care from kids? Schip has been around for a while....right?


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

ObamaCare's damage to the existing system is far more harmful to The Children than is reversing the Obamanation.

What good is free health care with immense waiting lists in an economy with low growth, tons-o-debt, and structurally permanent double digit unemployment?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Point is, nothing is official...either way.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> ObamaCare's damage to the existing system is far more harmful to The Children than is reversing the Obamanation.



How so? 

Hold on, let me get some popcorn.....


----------



## Terral (Jan 31, 2011)

Hi Trajan:



Trajan said:


> I have asked twice before, putting aside sevrability, how we would go forward minus the mandate, don't  recall getting answer.
> 
> the money shot-
> 
> ...



First the Govt sits on its incompetent hands and allows 20 million illegal aliens to waltz in an take jobs from Americans. Then the Govt allows a Kenyan-born immigrant to Indonesia (Barry) to squat in the White House and with Washington Lobbyists create a Health Care Mandate that forces everyone to buy health insurance to redistribute the wealth accordingly. 

We have 23 percent unemployment and 45 million citizens on food stamps and the idiots in Washington are trying to figure out a way to make all of their illegal aliens "Legal." That is a nice kick in the face for every unemployed citizen that cannot afford health care and would be fined for not having mandated health insurance. Thankfully we have a few good judges with a little bit of common sense that realize ObamaCare will never fly.

GL,

Terral


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


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



It's like Greta just said, that's because those not particularly bright lawyer lawmakers didn't but a severence clause innit??  Priceless.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Is Vinson's ruling "official" or unofficial"?


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
> >
> ...



Well, that's more than half the United States then,, unless you izz like obie wan tubanuba and think there are 57..


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



be quiet the moron is making popcorn.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Yep,, yes,, si' and paid for by smokers,, yep yes and si'


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> CoolBreeze said:
> 
> 
> > From what I am hearing is that it still will be going to the SC.  What was claimed unconstitutional was the insurance mandate.  Which in it's own right should kill the whole law but that is yet to be seen.
> ...



Generally that is true, but there are exceptions. Please note that I am not saying that finding the mandate unconstitutional makes the whole law unconstitutional, but there have been cases in the past where an entire law was declared unconstitutional because a fundamental part of it is unconstitutional. Whether this will eventually hold up is for the courts to decide, not you or me.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

This is Karma:

_I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday._

Judge uses Obama&#39;s words against him - Washington Times


----------



## xotoxi (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


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



I wonder if he read the law before ruling on it....


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> This is Karma:
> 
> _I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday._
> 
> Judge uses Obama's words against him - Washington Times


Dontcha just _*hate*_ it when that happens?


----------



## Flopper (Jan 31, 2011)

*Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*


----------



## JScott (Jan 31, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...



No.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > This is Karma:
> ...


The original healthcare bill did not include the mandate.  It included a single payer system which would have cut out the health insurance companies.  The pressure and big bucks from insurance companies insured that a single payer system would not pass.  So to get the law passed, Obama backed down.  In so doing, he lost a lot of support from Democrats because the bill was not what he promised.

We're starting to hear some rumblings that if the bill were overturn, the next healthcare bill  in the offering could be a single payer system if Democrats get control of Congress and the presidency.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Yeah...And if monkeys fly out my ass.


----------



## MikeK (Jan 31, 2011)

whitehall said:


> In a meticulous decision a federal judge ruled on a law suit by 28 states that the Health Care law is unconstitutional.


On whose opinion is the adjective, _meticulous,_ based?


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Flopper said:


> *Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*



Let not your heart be troubled. Before he gave that pittiance to seniors he stole 960Billion dollars from their medicare fund.....lots and lots of them will not get the care they need. errrrr needed in some cases.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > This is Karma:
> ...





It's one of the reasons why the Big Government types loathe the internets and blogosphere.   They get caught in their lies.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 31, 2011)

This could be a great thing for progressives. NO liberal Democrats wanted the individual mandate, which is a Republican idea the Heritage Foundation created. The House passed a bill with a public option, the Senate had 2 bills, one with and one without. But, the public option was nixed by conservative Democrats and the Senator from Aetna, Low LIEberman...

The individual mandate is the only way private insurance cartels can accept the measures ALL Americans agree on, no preexisting conditions, no canceled policies, no denied coverage and 80 cents of every dollar having to go to medical treatments.

It will be interesting to see how Republicans twist in the wind when their true priorities are endangered...huge profits for insurance cartels and fucking the people.


----------



## driveby (Jan 31, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





None of these fucks will breathe a word about single payer until after 2012, if the dembos win the election. Say it before then and that ass kicking in November will be look like a swedish massage compared to what will happen in 2012.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > CoolBreeze said:
> ...



The only exceptions that exist are when the unconstitutional portion, if there is one, cannot under any circumstances be severed from the body of the law.

For people who claim to hate activist judges, the rightwingnuts sure love *their* activist judges.

I know that if this Court were to actually rely on precedent and do it's job, this law is constitutional. I say that based upon the current state of the law and the rules of stare decisis.That said, I also have no doubt that the rightwingnuts on the Court will strike down the mandate. I also have no doubt that the left side of the bench will uphold the law. That leaves the decision to Justice Kennedy.

But I also know that Judge Vinson's decision doesn't meet any criteria for adjudication that I've ever heard of.

Make you wonder who assigned the case to him in Florida.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

Striking down douchey laws doesn't constitute "judicial activism".

Too bad so sad for the medical Marxists.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.



The judge is citing the lack of a severability clause in the legislation for voiding the entire package.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.
> ...



i know. and there's no such concept in law.

it's bogus.


----------



## bucs90 (Jan 31, 2011)

Breaking in Florida. Florida judge rules Obamacare unConstitutional. He called the mandate to buy a product from a private company unConstitutional, and then ruled that because the entire law is based on that mandate, the entire bill is thrown out.

Huge. But just the next dominoe in the collapse of modern liberalism.

merged-del


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Does he know it's bogus? We better get on the phones.


----------



## bucs90 (Jan 31, 2011)

This is huge. Obamacare is dead. Feds cannot ignore a federal court's ruling. Unless we're back in the civil rights days when the feds ignore federal courts. Obama, what do you do now? Just quit.


----------



## xotoxi (Jan 31, 2011)

Flopper said:


> *Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*



They will have to refund their prescription drug plans (with interest) within 90 days.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 31, 2011)

bucs90 said:


> Breaking in Florida. Florida judge rules Obamacare unConstitutional. He called the mandate to buy a product from a private company unConstitutional, and then ruled that because the entire law is based on that mandate, the entire bill is thrown out.
> 
> Huge. But just the next dominoe in the collapse of modern liberalism.



The health care bill Democrats passed was a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, which included the BIG Republican idea...the Individual Mandate.

NOW, this will open the door for what progressives passed in the first place...a public option.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...





I've heard that "monkeys flying out of ass" is one of the new pre-existing conditions which will be covered by ObamaCare!


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2011)

bucs90 said:


> This is huge. Obamacare is dead. Feds cannot ignore a federal court's ruling. Unless we're back in the civil rights days when the feds ignore federal courts. Obama, what do you do now? Just quit.



It's not dead....it's just going to end up in the Supreme Court, probably fast tracked.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Meister said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > This is huge. Obamacare is dead. Feds cannot ignore a federal court's ruling. Unless we're back in the civil rights days when the feds ignore federal courts. Obama, what do you do now? Just quit.
> ...





The sooner the better.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> i know. and there's no such concept in law.
> 
> it's bogus.



Sorry Jillian, servability has been a legal concept which has existed in the law for a very long time.


"Severability doctrine is well-settled. Once a court has concluded
that a statute contains unconstitutional provisions or applications, the
doctrine provides that the court should sever the unconstitutional
parts unless the legislature would not have intended the valid ones to
stand alone."​
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwlr/issues/pdf/Gans 76-3.pdf


Ultimately it goes back to Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, Severability Clauses are a means for Congress to establish for the courts "such exceptions" as they desire.



2000 pages and someone forgot to put the Serverability Clause in it?

>>>>


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Well duh.   The games about whether or not to include a severability clause were one of the few transparent aspects of how ObamaCare was passed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...



So know you know more then Federal Judges? And you want to lecture us on the Constitution?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I have a hard time believing that a federal judge who has been on the bench for 40 years doesn't know the law.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.
> ...



Details details.  What the hell does an experienced federal judge know, anyway?  Just ask Jillian, keeper of the toilet paper at some law firm.


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2011)

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 31, 2011)

del said:


> "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.



Yep, I specifically remember him criticizing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for wanting to mandate the purchase of health insurance.  Another one of Obama's many lies on the campaign trail.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

didn't they ( congress) consciously remove the severability  clause ( salvatorius) ? 

If I recall back in the X-mas push, there was a severability clause in the original bill, but the senate language was substituted for and added to in place of certain  sections of the house bill (pelosi dropped the ball?) and the severability clause was not kept....I gotta get a link...

edit-

http://www.aclj.org/media/PDF/Virginia_Amicus_Brief_20100607.pdf

yup, it appears they did do something to drop it, page 19 by the doc. Number or 25 in acrobat count. Yes its an amicus brief  but I really doubt they'd tell such a dangerous easily disprovable lie.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

del said:


> "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.



what tangled webs we wave...

and, you are bordering on heresy sir.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

SeaShadow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > i know. and there's no such concept in law.
> ...


Ooopsie.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that &#8216;if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,&#8217;&#8221; Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
> ...



this is what happens when you try to have it both ways on the spot, eventually you'll have to decide and live with the result. 

Remember Hudsons decision, the previous judge,and his comment as to  Obama said it was a fee, then its a tax,  then is a fee again.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
> >
> ...



So much for this bullshit about obama being a Constitutional law school professor. Or even having knowledge of the Constitution.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

this is a hoot..


January 31, 2011 6:11 PM
White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama's Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision "Judicial Activism"

White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama's Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision "Judicial Activism" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



ahh so noooooooooow its" Judicial Activism"  


let me add a quote here....I am sure some of us will recognize...


"the chickennnns ...have come home...to Rooooossst"!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 31, 2011)

This video if from a  former obama supporter


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
> >
> ...


hopefully the attorneys that present their case to the SC can make a compelling argument so that there will be a 5-4 decision to strike down Obamacare. There are 4 solid liberals on the Court so we cannot expect them to rule objectively.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm not a particularly smart individual but even I knew this crazy law the Democrats pushed down our throats was unConstitutional.  Wonder how long it will take all the moonbats to come to the same conclusion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> this is a hoot..
> 
> 
> January 31, 2011 6:11 PM
> ...



You're not going to become a radical preacher are you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 31, 2011)

del said:


> "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.



Got to love those radical activist judges.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 31, 2011)

I think most of us knew this was coming. Even those on the left knew it. They won't admit it, but they knew it.

And it''s all good.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> I'm not a particularly smart individual but even I knew this crazy law the Democrats pushed down our throats was unConstitutional.  Wonder how long it will take all the moonbats to come to the same conclusion?


Never...That's why they're moonbats.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

SeaShadow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > i know. and there's no such concept in law.
> ...


Jill?


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a particularly smart individual but even I knew this crazy law the Democrats pushed down our throats was unConstitutional.  Wonder how long it will take all the moonbats to come to the same conclusion?
> ...




That's also why they are obsessed with chattering about Sarah Palin as a distraction.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 31, 2011)

So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.



I cannot wait to see him declare medicare is unconstitutional...the republicans will be in trash bin of history.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Medicare is funded with a tax.  Taxation has been judged constitutional.

ObamaCare's individual mandate requires the individual to buy something from a company or face a fine.  Even Obama said it wasn't a tax.

Hence, Medicare's constitutionality has no bearing on ObamaCare's, and visa versa.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 31, 2011)

chick-a-boom chick-a-boom don't ya just love it.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Medicare is funded with a tax.  Taxation has been judged constitutional.
> 
> ObamaCare's individual mandate requires the individual to buy something from a company or face a fine.  Even Obama said it wasn't a tax.
> 
> Hence, Medicare's constitutionality has no bearing on ObamaCare's, and visa versa.


Face a tax...there is no real difference.

Oh, my...does this mean you support medicare.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Severability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


i guess they should have taken the time to READ IT


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



lets talk latin it sounds cool..........salvatorius clause,(Severability)-The severability clause  is the name for a clause that regulates the legal consequences or the applicability of the remaining clauses of a contract when some clauses of a contract are or become ineffective or infeasible. The goal of the severability clause is usually to maintain the spirit of the contract as much as possible.

Severability clauses are sometimes used in statutes, to preserve the effectiveness of certain portions of the statute if some part is struck down as unconstitutional by a court exercising in judicial review.

Salvatorius clause | Ask.com Encyclopedia

and as we have discovered they themselves ( Democrats)  alone were responsible for its absence, period. I am actually surprised as Obama said he was infinitely knowledgeable as to the bill that he, a constitutional proff.... oops, lecturer, didn't catch the omission.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Flopper said:


> *Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*



nothing happens now because there has been no stay. this was just another district court which was meaningless in the scheme of things. it goes to the circuit court and then to the supreme court. 

but the rightwingnuts are celebrating nada of import.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare is funded with a tax.  Taxation has been judged constitutional.
> ...



I am wondering  you keep ignoring or glossing over the word mandate as in engaging in commerce by order. Besides I thought it was a fee?


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



that isn't what i meant. perhaps i didn't make myself clear. there is NO REQUIREMENT IN LAW THAT THERE BE a severability clause. I know what such a clause is. they do cover such things in con law classes.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Medicare isn't a mandate?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*
> ...



well,  if thats so then you ought to shoot off a letter to the Wh, they are now in full lather over judicial activism. aside from that it seems to me that any time a fed judge rules oh like the fellow in Az.  that sppts a left wing view, _ that,_ matters and carries great import among  the chattering classes of which we ALL are part,  but, all of a sudden _this_ doesn't.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



that's your characterization. i don't share it. 

like i said, two courts said yea, two said nay. that's life.

no matter how happy the rightwingnuts are.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> What lies?
> 
> Apparently the authors of the bill didn't think about the Constitutional ramifications of, well, ramming it down our throats....
> 
> ...



Child only dropded b/c of Obamacare: Huffy POS
Child-Only Health Insurance Policies Dropped By Big Insurers

Child only dropded b/c of Obamacare:
ObamaCare Fallout: Child-Only Policies Dropped In 34 States | Right Wing News


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



and social security.

but they shouldn't let that confuse them.

this is the same 'let's kill the new deal' stuff the right has been doing since FDR was president. and any rational court knows what the law is on the subject.

which doesn't mean that they will actually act like judges.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> that's your characterization. i don't share it.
> 
> like i said, two courts said yea, two said nay. that's life.
> 
> no matter how happy the rightwingnuts are.



I wont be happy till that POS bill is in the trash heap of history!


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*
> ...



We shall see who has the last laugh my friend.  This law will not stand up as Constitutional.  I strongly agree that health care reform is badly needed in this country but this ObamaCare thing was not the correct solution to the problem.  The one good thing, and the only good thing about ObamaCare, is that it has stirred Americans up enough to at last do something meaningful and that can be afforded with regards to health care in this country.  However, what ever is done needs to be done within the scope of the Constitution.  This particular law is going to be dead but not the need and determination to get something done that all Americans can agree to is not.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare is funded with a tax.  Taxation has been judged constitutional.
> ...




No. I'm merely pointing out that they were not justified using the same rationale.

Here's Obama is in his own words:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-qh9XDbgE]Not A Tax Increase[/ame]


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



seems like the leftwingnuts don't like the ruling....


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




ObamaCare is to Health Care Reform what a vat of Kentucky Fried Chicken is to a Fat Fatty.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 31, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented?  For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year.  In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now.  There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.*
> ...


Not really concerned with all the political B.S, just whether I have to shell out about $2,000 in additional drug cost for my older brother this year.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Medicare isn't a mandate?



Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?


----------



## JFK_USA (Jan 31, 2011)

We need single payer. I bet these 2 judges (which many more actually held up its constitutionality, but ignored by the right) made the ruling to help their buddies.

This is Judical Activism at its finest.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> We need single payer. I bet these 2 judges (which many more actually held up its constitutionality, but ignored by the right) made the ruling to help their buddies.
> 
> This is Judical Activism at its finest.



Yep, you liberals would know judicial activism wouldnt ya?

Ya'll are guilty of it *FAR MORE *than the right EVER thought of being.


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm just happy for a moment of sanity amidst that chaos that has been Barack Obama.

Whether the SCOTUS will uphold it or not, we'll see.

But for a moment, sanity has returned to the US political scene.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...


it is called "severability".......It's usually inserted into legislation to insure that if any part or part of the bill is stripped out, the rest will remain. 
When the Obamacare bill was written, the serverability clause was inadvertently left out.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 31, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > We need single payer. I bet these 2 judges (which many more actually held up its constitutionality, but ignored by the right) made the ruling to help their buddies.
> ...



Bullshit...Citizens United is the biggest piece of judicial activism in history...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 31, 2011)

Oh Please.

9th circuit..... Nuff said.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




It wasn't inadvertently left out - Pelosi and Reid left it out on purpose as part of their legislative gamesmanship.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > that's your characterization. i don't share it.
> ...



then you're a very good rightwing soldier.  

tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.

i'll wait.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



Any decision you don't agree with is "judicial activism"...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.


Yeah ok...A conspiracy theory of yours?
Look genius, for Single Payer to become law, a new piece of legislation will have to be written. 
Only this time we will be watching and questioning everything. There will be no backroom deals and none of this "we'll have to pass it so we can see what's in it" bullshit.
Single payer doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a blast furnace.


----------



## driveby (Jan 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



What a pea brained statement......


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Had it just been that I'd have been all aboard the 0bamacare bandwagon....


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



yup, we pay a tax forward for benefits at a set age. no doubt of it...and? 

any rational court will see this mandate for what it is- we are told to purchase a good/service. period. 

you should listen to Obama during his campaign, he said it right then and there, there would be no end to what the gov.  could ostensibly tell you to do. What happened to that slippery slope? 


HE changed his tune (then changed it back- its a fee then its a tax now its a fee again) because he needed the money and the only way to make the shoe fit was to command everyone to buy a plan or be penalized. Does it bother you he lied...at all? 

and just because you think its 'right' to command people to purchase goods and services,  doesn't mean  its 'right'  OR justifiable.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...


sure it is..you just don't like it...
Look, you need to go bake cookies.
anyone who keeps themselves as uninformed as you AND quotes Springsteen, needs to find a hobby...Like crochet or knitting.

Liberals....riding the short bus to mediocrity.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



what negatively impacts on you? and don't tell me it's b/c you'd be forced to buy insurance. i'd put money on you already being insured.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Striking down douchy laws doesn't constitute "judicial activism".
> 
> Too bad so sad for the medical Marxists.



Unless it's your 'douchy' law...funny how that works....


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

driveby said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Dont laugh.... they cant help it 










AWWW fuck it


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 31, 2011)

Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??

Yes you do remember that.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Go to the Romper Room. Adults are talking...


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Why does it have to impact me personally to have an opinion on it?


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Holy crap.... where do I get started??????

You know... Im not going to bother, b/c you are good little drone for Obama care and you wouldnt listen anyways.

Lets just say I dont want the gov't telling me I have to buy ANYTHING AT ALL..... Its none of their fucking business!

How about YOU tell US how it will help anything, and how we are going to sustain it.

This law is going to break this nation if its not repealled!


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



you know, if you knew what you were talking about, i'd actually address you. but i can tell you there is no precedent for the assertion that the severability clause MUST be included. it's presumed to exist.

not that stare decisis means anything to you or that you even know what it is.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??
> 
> Yes you do remember that.


The court didn't legislate in this case, puddinhead.

Work on your memory.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



and there ya go. Now its the "wing nuts" fault they ran around and screwed things up because at the end of the day they were clueless, because- cit was all about winning.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Anarchist!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> CoolBreeze said:
> 
> 
> > From what I am hearing is that it still will be going to the SC.  What was claimed unconstitutional was the insurance mandate.  Which in it's own right should kill the whole law but that is yet to be seen.
> ...


Oh...I get it....Because certain SC justices may decide Obamacare or parts thereof would be unconstitutional, that in and of itself makes them out to be "hacks"...
You are incorrect, sweetie pie..The bill did not contain the severability clause and therefore if one part is struck down the entire law is stuck down.
Liberals...Riding the short bus to mediocrity


----------



## Flopper (Jan 31, 2011)

*I suspect if the Supreme Court overturns this thing, there is going to be a pretty strong backlash when people come to realize that the country is back to square one.  I'm sure the right will  proclaim the country and the greatest healthcare system in the world is saved ignoring the people that can't get insurance and the rising number of bankruptcy due to healthcare costs.*


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > CoolBreeze said:
> ...



no. you don't get it. 

and frankly, someone as ignorant as you patronizing me is kind of funny.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 31, 2011)

If the Supreme Court finds against the bill, it will open the way for Medicare for all. That's what I'd prefer anyway.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Yes it is..Until a higher court says differently.
This will undoubtedly follow the path to the federal district then to the US SC...
The SC is the highest level in the judicial branch...If they decide the law is unconstitutional, then that is that...Game over. 
Or the SC can refuse to hear the case and let stand a lower court ruling.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Ummm what about the 2 other judges who said it was constitutional? Conveniently forget about those?


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

don't confuse him with facts.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



oh yes...The "it's for the children" argument...Please stop the nonsense.
As of right now, the law is unconstitutional. Each higher court that hears the case and renders a decision will decide whether or not the law is constitutional...
You'll juts have to accept the procedures as they stand. And for now, the properly adjudicated decision by Judge Vinson states Obamacare is unconstitutional. Stop insisting.


----------



## JFK_USA (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??
> 
> Yes you do remember that.



the hypocrisy that is the White House now whining about judicial activism has been noted already.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I'm not your buddy and I don't give a shit about gay marriage...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 31, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.
> ...


You forget, Lefties do not care if something is extremely unpopular. They will ram it through anyways.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



you don't know what you're talking about.

two district courts struck it down. two upheld it.

nothing has happened. there is no stay on the law at this point. 

it will go to the respective circuit courts of appeal. if there is still disagreement between the circuits (and i suspect there will be) it will go to the supreme court where the cases will be consolidated and ruled upon.

thanks for your input. 

and don't quit your day job.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?



Um not if the ruling fit with the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when you attempt to redefine the meaning of the law with your rulings. 

Like the 2 judges who ruled in Obamacares Favor did when they upheld the Bogus ass claim that the Mandate is justified under the commerce clause.

The 2 Judges who ruled against it know the truth, that if the government can justify forcing to you buy health insurance under the commerce clause. They can force you to do or Buy just about anything under the same mantra. 

A massive and unacceptable expansion of Federal Power is what that would be.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?
> ...



in other words, if you disagree, it is activism.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

well, let us suppose that the mandate doesn't survive and that the rest of the bill is free to go forward....so, what does that do to the financial backing the whole magilla?

The Democrats have made many many many claims that the mandate is a 'linchpin", an imperative and crucial to the bill.....

so? if no one buys and is fined or taxed, then what?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot wait to see him declare medicare is unconstitutional...the republicans will be in trash bin of history.


WTF does medicare have to do with this?.....NOTHING...Nice try though.

Liberals....riding the short bus to mediocrity


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


a foolish and sad attempt to silence your opposition...
Interesting how you know where the kiddies hang out....
I think you should be investigated by the authorities....

liberals....riding the short bus to mediocrity.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.
> ...



if you had any understanding of the constitutional caselaw, you'd understand that medicare is based on the same constitutional premise as the insurance mandate.

you're not very bright are you?

but keep repeating that same stupid sentence. it just accentuates how insipid you are.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.
> ...


It means we might have Medicare for everyone. Woohoo.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

Ravi said:


> So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot wait to see him declare medicare is unconstitutional...the republicans will be in trash bin of history.


Medicare is a stand-alone gubint monopoly program...It doesn't force anyone to buy insurance from one of numerous private providers.

You lose.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



because you'd destroy everything good about the law for no reason.

the part you don't like is what pays for the rest of it.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...


Never believe the left.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I repeat:

Medicare is a stand-alone gubint monopoly program...It doesn't force anyone to buy insurance from one of numerous private providers.

The insipidity is all yours.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Just not everyone has to pay for it. that's why you stole 960 billion dollars from those who had paid for it.. whoooo hooo. Thieves.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.


Typical socialist games. I wish obama would resign....waiting.....


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.
> ...


Exactly, we'd all be able to enroll in Medicare, and private insurance could compete.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


then go find THAT particular case  which sets legal precedent from which you draw your conclusion. "There is no precedent"....This is demanding one prove a negative. If you are indeed involved in some way with the legal profession, you know darned well that is not how it works. BTW, "there is no precedent" reminds me of AlGore's famous "no controlling legal authority" line.....
As of now, you're just spitballing in the hopes that someone will agree with you.
And please put down the thesaurus. I can just as easily look up 50 cent words and post them here to make myself appear learned....Get it?..
BTW, I DO know....That's because before I post , I check the details on which I am not certain. 
You refuted the judge's opinion based on your understanding. He based his ruling on 40 years of experience.
Let us suppose for a moment, this judge ruled on a case where his decision, as you believe, is flawed yet agreed with your ideology, would you disagree with the decision with the same zeal as you do this one?.....Be honest. Your credibility on this board hangs in the balance.


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Get rid of the whole thing and write something that IS constitutional....


Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to by insurance he doesn't want or need?

Are we going to start requiring city-dwelling high risers who don't own cars to buy auto insurance anyway to pay for the idiots who drive around without it?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > 0bamacare just got smacked...
> ...


Repeating the same lies over and over again is obama's and the lefts tactics. How can you tell when a dimwit is lying? His lips are moving.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I stand corrected..thank you. Bottom line is the clause is missing, correct?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Were you cleaning the toilet while the prof was lecturing that day?
You are backtracking because you have exposed your ignorance.  It is obvious that there is no requirement to have a severability clause.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Woah, did you come up with that on your own??


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Obamacare is unconstitutional because the united states gov't. cannot mandate that you buy something, that is socialism. Obama is an idiot just like reid and pelosi and anybody who supports the.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Health insurance should be available to everyone. even those with pre-existing conditions.
The insured would be covered for other ailments than the pre existing. If they wish coverage for the pre-existing, they can pay for a high deductable rider on that. 
But I'll be damend if I have to fund coverage for those conditions which are the result of poor eating habits, smoking, drug abuse or any other self inflicted disease or injury.
I cannot burn down my house then take out an insurance policy on it. 
Look, this Obamacare law does nothing to protect those with pre-existing conditions. The insurance carriers are not going to write policies for those people. Pre-exists will be forced to the government exchange. And THAT is the untended purpose of Obamacare. The lone purpose of Obamacare is to move as many people as possible over to the government plan. This is intentional as it will create  dependency on government.
In every single socialized medicine country, care is rationed and it comes at a very high cost. Most, if not all of the western European socialized meds countries have systems that are deeply in debt.
Why is it you are so interested in seeing the federal government take over the medical care industry and put the private health insurers out of business? Are you not concerned about the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the insurance industry will lose their jobs?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Last page....
> ...


No, they were probably leftwing socialist judges anyway, they were wrong.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...


More likely he did, unlike the idiots in d.c.


----------



## Zander (Jan 31, 2011)

Face the facts LEFTIES - your precious Obamacare is going down. You actual expect that a lousy bill passed in the middle of the night with kickbacks and purchased votes will be allowed to stand??  You must hate children.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 31, 2011)

Zander said:


> Face the facts LEFTIES - your precious Obamacare is going down. You actual expect that a lousy bill passed in the middle of the night with kickbacks and purchased votes will be allowed to stand??  You must hate children.


They are so delusional they actually believe the lies that spill out of their mouths. The whole process of pushing that bill down our throats was a shameful exercise.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??
> ...



Your deflection is noted as well.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



ok what don't I get? The part that Reid and Pelosi deliberately left severability out of the law or the part that the federal judge made his decision to find Obamacare unconstitutional and because of the lack of severability was more or less forced to find the entire law to be unconstitutional...
Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you.
The mere fact that you ,one who presents herself as being so well educated is here on a political discussion board having to debate with a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt..
Now genius , how much intelligence does THAT take?
Now ,go ahead. Think of a clever comeback. Dazzle me.
You're on a losing streak here. A federal judge with over 40 years experience has rendered a decision. You don't like it because the decision has the potential for political disaster for your side. So you decide to pop off a few legal sounding sentences and then with all the wisdom your education can muster you conclude the decision was "stupid"..
Oh yes. That is what you implied....Gotta hand to ya there boopie. You outsmarted all of us.....
You got patronized because you deserved it.....Tell me, if a gentleman pulls out your chair so may be seated, do you consider that "patronizing"?....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 31, 2011)

Oddball said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??
> ...



I didn't say they did you illiterate inbred.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 31, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare isn't a mandate?
> ...



You're forced to pay into it if you work.  It's an insurance;  you're required to pay a premium towards it.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



i'm curious as to what prior decisions you believe support the h/c law....

just the names if you want


----------



## Yurt (Jan 31, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



no, you're wrong and clearly do not understand obamacare


----------



## Vel (Jan 31, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




But, you're not forced to pay into it simply because you're alive. That's the problem with Obamacare.


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

Vel6377 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Commerce clause 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> 1) Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
> 2) I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you.
> 3) The mere fact that you ,one who presents herself as being so well educated is here on a political discussion board having to debate with a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt..Now genius , how much intelligence does THAT take?



1) No, they would probably show a little more class and intelligence
2) Her pinky shows more signs of life and intelligence
3) I am not surprised you are a "high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt'. It shows....


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.

Feel manly now, bub?


----------



## The Infidel (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
> ...



*DEFLECTION*


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

He who cannot erect must deflect.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Could I point out that the administration presented 12 separate arguments  in their motion to dismiss about why the mandate is a fundamental part of the ACA, and that without it the whole law falls apart? Or that the people who wrote the law actually say the same thing? How is it judicial activism to defer to the words of the administration and Congress about how important the mandate is? Maybe the problem here is not Vinson's decision, but the arguments and evidence he was presented.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.
> 
> Feel manly now, bub?



it's a woman? 

that's too funny. 

so it's okay for it to insult an anonymous woman on a messageboard? and it's okay for you to insult an anonymous man on a messageboard?

go back to  your bon bons and do us all a favor.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
> ...



actually i was trying to educate it. i wouldn't call any discussion with that simpleton a debate.

and it thinks it's smarter than i am? 

heh... whatever floats its boat. it can't even make a cogent argument.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

boedicca said:


> And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.
> 
> Feel manly now, bub?



1) I have no idea of the gender of the Spoon.
2) And you're insulting me, now. You feel manly?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

jillian said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.
> ...



Actually Bod's wrong (for a change.....)

From HIS post "a high school grad with a few adult education courses under *his *belt.."


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



does anyone else want to tackle these questions?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Is car insurance compulsory in the US?

Cards on table: In my homeland it is not. In Oz it is.....


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



That wasn't the question...  The first one was the money question...  The second was rhetorical....

Wanna try again?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I was asking out of interest....

Anybody else want to tell?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


it varies by state
some states do(most) some dont


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



It is if you drive a vehicle...

Wanna go for my question now?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.

The point is you brought up both questions 2 and 3 to back your point - rhetorical or not. If you're going to use something to illustrate your point, don't be surprised if it comes back and bites you in the butt.

That aside, to your initial 'money' question, how do you make it constitutional? Non compulsory? Then what? More of the same as it was before?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.
> 
> The point is you brought up both questions 2 and 3 to back your point - rhetorical or not. If you're going to use something to illustrate your point, don't be surprised if it comes back and bites you in the butt.
> 
> That aside, to your initial 'money' question, how do you make it constitutional? Non compulsory? Then what? More of the same as it was before?


there is no "right" to drive a car
it is a privilege granted by the state, it comes with rules


----------



## Dr.House (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.


Not everyone drives a car...  Insurance is compulsory if you do, though...  swing and a miss...



> The point is you brought up both questions 2 and 3 to back your point - rhetorical or not. If you're going to use something to illustrate your point, don't be surprised if it comes back and bites you in the butt.


Your failure to understand does not mean that the question "bit me"...  pay attention...  Forcing someone to buy something that isn't necessary just to pay for the people who can't afford it is unconstitutional...



> That aside, to your initial 'money' question, how do you make it constitutional? Non compulsory? Then what? More of the same as it was before?


Still doesn't answer my question...  Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to buy insurance that he doesn't want or need?

Try answering without asking another question...  it works better that way....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.
> ...



There is no 'right' to have medical care either in your constitution? Is there?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.
> ...



Well it would help if you stopped trying to duck and weave and being your smarmy self. Your avatar may be House, but unless you are Hugh Laurie, you can't even pretend to be him...

If car insurance is compulsory, then why can't medicare be? Your argument is based on what is constitutional and what is not. If you have a problem with compulsory car insurance then at least your argument is consistant. If not, they it is hypocritical.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


nope there isnt


----------



## Flopper (Jan 31, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Not sure where the 960 billion came from.  CMS (Center for Medicare Services) estimates the amount needed to implement the law is 882 billion over 10 years.  The amount from Medicare savings is $541 billion not $970.  The details are in the following CMS document.

https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2010-01-08.pdf

Although 882 billion or 88 billion/yr is lot a money but by comparison it is just over half what we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Surely we arent going to be stupid enough to continue these wars for 10 years.


----------



## Dr.House (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I'm pretty smarmy IRL...  It's not an act, so you'll have to live with it...



> If car insurance is compulsory, then why can't medicare be?


not everyone drives....  should the big city hi-risers be forced to buy car insurance if they don't own a car and will never drive a vehicle?



> Your argument is based on what is constitutional and what is not. If you have a problem with compulsory car insurance then at least your argument is consistant. If not, they it is hypocritical.



My argument is that nobody should be forced to purchase anything they don't need...  Drivers need car insurance to be able to perform the privilege of driving ...  humans don't need health insurance to perform the right to live...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I'm an excellent driver. Have never had an accident in 27 years of driving. Why should I be forced to buy insurance because some people are terrible drivers?

You don't need health insurance for the right to live. If I live in the states and don't have insurance, what happens if I am diagnosed with a life threatening disease...


----------



## Dr.House (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Still answering questions with questions, huh?...  Insurance also protects you from the other drivers who may not be excellent drivers...  But if you don't drive you don't need to purchase car insurance...  With 0bamacare, all are being required to carry insurance, which is similar to asking the non-drivers to carry car insurance...



> You don't need health insurance for the right to live.


yet 0bamacare is requiring you carry it anyway...



> If I live in the states and don't have insurance, what happens if I am diagnosed with a life threatening disease...


depends...  a lot of charities exist as well as other non profits who are willing to help people out who need helping...

Sometimes the dice comes up snake eyes and sometimes it comes up boxcars...  I don't need the gubmint to tell me I have to be covered for a bad dice roll if I'm in a low risk group...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Still answering questions with questions, huh?...  Insurance also protects you from the other drivers who may not be excellent drivers...  But if you don't drive you don't need to purchase car insurance...  With 0bamacare, all are being required to carry insurance, which is similar to asking the non-drivers to carry car insurance....



I disagree with your assessment. If a non-driver NEVER drives then why would he need insurance? However, a human being, as some stage in life, will need health care. I have yet to meet a human who has never died.

However I have met a few who have never driven....


----------



## Dr.House (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Still answering questions with questions, huh?...  Insurance also protects you from the other drivers who may not be excellent drivers...  But if you don't drive you don't need to purchase car insurance...  With 0bamacare, all are being required to carry insurance, which is similar to asking the non-drivers to carry car insurance....
> ...



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?


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 1, 2011)

What happens to the 20-something year old who chose not to buy insurance after they are diagnosed with Hodgkins disease?


----------



## Dr.House (Feb 1, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> What happens to the 20-something year old who chose not to buy insurance after they are diagnosed with Hodgkins disease?



What if he isn't diagnosed with Hodgkins?  (if you want to play the "what if" game...)

Shouldn't that guy be allowed to roll the dice if he want's to?



BTW, There are lots of charities and non-profits out there to help those who need it...  but I digress...


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens to the 20-something year old who chose not to buy insurance after they are diagnosed with Hodgkins disease?
> ...



Unable to come up with an answer, House responds with a question of his own.

I recall someone bringing that up earlier in the thread....


----------



## Flopper (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


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.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 1, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



He pays for treatment out of his own pocket.  It is his decision and his risk.  Fortunately for society that doesn't happen very often.
What was your point again?


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 1, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



To highlight what can happen when you choose not to be insured.

What happens when he can't pay out of his own pocket?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 1, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



He'll file bankruptcy.  Fortunately that doesn't happen very often.
Any other irrelevant points you'd lke to make?  What happens when a 12yr old steals a car and he isn't an insured driver?  Maybe we need to force people to buy insurance for non drivers as well.  What happens if.....  The possibilities are endless.


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 1, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Who pays his medical bills when he files for bankruptcy?


----------



## idb (Feb 1, 2011)

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.


----------



## Jackson (Feb 1, 2011)

Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip.  This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009.  The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression.  The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history.  And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.

That just wasn't wise.  

Maybe 10 years ago.  I know, they tried.  Or ten years from now when we are on stable footing, if we are on stable footing. 

 But to take on a an obligation like that at a time like this when we are trying to get debt relief, get people back to work, bring companies back to our shores, don't complicate this mess with controversial programs like entitlements now.  The time and effort given to this enormous problem has taken our focus away from the survival from our country's economic stabilization.

We have to cut spending....


We have to agree on what we cut...

We have to stop the president to stop thinking about freezing and investing and really cutting...

We have to decide on whether we raise the debt ceiling....

We have to work together in bipartisan  manners... stop with the games and politics.

And if we have to..raise taxes.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



I don't agree with the decision, but it was still judicial activism. Judge Stevens in his dissent makes that clear. The court was never challenged to rule on corporate treasury funding of independent political campaigns. The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled.

These are topics adults understand, maybe mommy can find someone in the trailer court that knows a lawyer to explain it to you.


----------



## Jackson (Feb 1, 2011)

idb said:


> I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
> Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?
> 
> Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
> In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.



You assumed too much.  It was Obama's agenda, no one elses.  In late 2008, the whole fiscal world was crashing around us. And he decided we needed Health Care Reform.  Go figure.


----------



## idb (Feb 1, 2011)

Jackson said:


> Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip.  This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009.  The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression.  The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history.  And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.
> 
> That just wasn't wise.
> 
> ...


That seems a fair argument.
It's still a fundamental issue though I would have thought, and the distance between the two sides seems vast.
Much of the opposition I saw was extreme and often seemed ridiculous (see Death panels) - not at all related to economics.
As I understand it, not one Republican voted for the bill, how was it that the Democrats failed so miserably to engage the Republicans?
Could it be attributed entirely to politics or was it the result of honestly held positions?


----------



## idb (Feb 1, 2011)

Jackson said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
> ...



Maybe you're right...in that case my question is answered.
The Republicans don't believe that there is any need for healthcare reform.


----------



## Jackson (Feb 1, 2011)

idb said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip.  This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009.  The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression.  The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history.  And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.
> ...



Honestly, I can't speak for all of them, but for the most part, they wanted to tackle the spending issues and what to do about the economy.  Most of the dealings were behind closed doors and back room deals were made to some Senators to get them to vote for the program, ie. Ben Nelson and others which brought shame to them in their own states.  That cost a lot of them their own seats in the election of 2010.

That's why the Republicans gave the "shellacking" to Obama in 2010.  Now we'll have to see how the Republicans hold up their end to spending cuts.  You heard that Obama merely wants to "freeze" spending but "invest" (spend) in America.. so it will not be easy.  So it will have to be working together.


----------



## idb (Feb 1, 2011)

Jackson said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



There's some serious work to be done alright.


----------



## chanel (Feb 1, 2011)

This was my favorite part:



> It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting  as was done in the Act  that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, *it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted*. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with *the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.*



Pajamas Media  The Unconstitutionality of ObamaCare in Black and White


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare isn't a mandate?
> ...


No...but the same amount of force applies to purchasing insurance under the new health care rules as applies to purchasing medicare. 

You are also not forced to use the insurance you purchase.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


I thought you were a free market loon.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Yes, a tax, a portion of your income is taken to pay for medicare. Just like a tax, a portion of your income will be taken if you don't buy health care coverage. They amount to the same thing. 

It should be interesting watching Republicans in general assuring the elderly population that the two are somehow different.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Vel6377 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


If you don't earn income, you don't have to buy insurance...either medicare or private insurance. And you can't get a tax penalty for it because you earn no income so you are exempt.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

boedicca said:


> And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.
> 
> Feel manly now, bub?


Do you feel manly when you insult anonymous women over the internets?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


If you own a car, yes it is compulsory. However, you are not required to have collision coverage unless you owe money on the car. You are required to have liability insurance and in some states uninsured motorist coverage to cover the dead beats that break the law.


----------



## asterism (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Well if car insurance is compulsory, is it constitutional.
> ...



Car insurance is not required, establishment of financial responsibility is.  In California it's a $35,000 deposit.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d07/vc16052.htm

Insurance Requirements for Vehicle Registration


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2011)

idb said:


> I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
> Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?
> 
> Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
> In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.



Here's your answer. Former G.W. Bush speechwriter David Frum was fired by the right wing think tank AEI for revealing the truth.

Waterloo | FrumForum

*At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision*: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, *we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.
*
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clintons 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? *But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.*


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2011)

Personally I'm _still_ waiting for our legal 'expert', Jillian, to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
> ...



You think George bush was a right winger?  thats equal to saying obama is a right winger. Neither are true.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Personally I'm _still_ waiting for our legal expert Jillian to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.


Liberals think *everything we do* is covered by the Commerce Clause and that's the only justification they need to regulate it all.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I'm _still_ waiting for our legal expert Jillian to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.
> ...



Then someone should tell them regulating is not a synonym for creating.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




That sounds great, except for the fact that the Obama Administration and Congress said the fine Was Not A Tax prior to the bill being passed.  They can't know call it a tax to defend it as constitutional.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


It's not an insurance. It's a tax.
Obamacare drains $500 billion rom medicare....Just in case you were wondering where some of the funding( Ha! That's amusing) will come from.
Then the rest comes from US....That's right. 18% of our gross income for those of us who earn over $62k per year.
That means if the household income is $90k per year, their Obamacare....Just where the hell are we supposed to get THAT?!!!!!
My family medical insurance will go from $400 per month to about $1300 per month. Yeah, $1,300 per month. That's BEFORE taxes....
No Free Lunch: The True Cost of ObamaCare
the speculation that this Obamacare is a job killer is this. Those families who have incomes just above the federal subsidy threshold will drop one of their incomes in order to qualify for federal subsidies. That takes people out of the job market meaning fewer people paying income taxes, fewer people paying into the Obamacare funding ....the rest is pretty easy to understand. The will be a lowering of the American Standard of living. We will see a dramatic slowdown in our economy.
All this so a more people can live off the taxpayer tit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Feb 1, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I'm _still_ waiting for our legal expert Jillian to show us where in the constitution the federal government was granted the authority to make people buy things.......She keeps claiming there is precedent yet I can not seem to find any precedent where the fed has ever done such a thing.
> ...


yeah..I am waiting for the federal government to invent a "fart" tax....You know....Carbon emissions.
Yeah, boopie keeps leaving cryptic messages on here that she is some kind of legal expert. 
she provides nothing to support that claim other than she just "says so"...
She has argued that Judge Vinson's ruling is "stupid" and there is no precedent for that ruling.
She ignores the fact that the law has no severability clause. She denies the judge can make such a decision. yet she can provide no evidence no support for her claim.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Feb 1, 2011)

idb said:


> I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
> Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?
> 
> Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
> In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.


Simple. The formerly democrat controlled House of Representatives refused to allow ANY input from the minority party.
There were several GOP proposals. Each one was summarily rejected.
There are a few simple things that can be done to improve access to health insurance.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Your reading comprehension is running at full capability... preschool level.

But as long as you asked...

Puppets don't have 'wings', they have 'strings'


----------



## Missourian (Feb 1, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


 
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?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 1, 2011)

idb said:


> I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
> Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?
> 
> Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
> In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.


Most Republicans feel access to healthcare along with other basic necessities is not the responsibility of the national government.  They feel, this decision should be left to the states and local communities.
Most Democrats believe that it's the of national government job to see that these basic necessities are available to all Americans regardless of where they live.  These are very fundamental differences in beliefs. 

To my knowledge, Republicans have never supported a national healthcare bill and probably never will.  Unfortunately, the inability of the two parities to work together means that affordable healthcare will probably never be available to all Americans.


----------



## hboats (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Vel6377 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



B.S.  There is no where in Obamacare that says that you aren't covered by the mandate if you don't work.  And the penalty for not having insurance isn't a tax.  It's plainly worded as a FINE.

I don't pay a FINE for medicare.  I pay a TAX.

Do you really not see the difference?

Rick


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bullshit...Citizens United is the biggest piece of judicial activism in history...



How is upholding over 100 years of precedence judicial activism?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.



I don't care for that provision at all.  All that does is result in my and your insurance costs increasing even more to make up for the lost revenue of them having to cover those pre-existing conditions of those people.  Furthemore, what gives the U.S. government the authority to tell them who they have to cover in the first place?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


It doesn't matter what they call it, a tax is a tax is a tax. It is a tax penalty...it is still a tax. If you didn't pay your medicare tax you would also receive a tax penalty.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

hboats said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Vel6377 said:
> ...


Yes there is...


----------



## hboats (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Please, show me exactly where it says that.  I'd really like to see it.

And why no comment on the difference between a tax and a fine?  Didn't you know that Obama himself said that the fine for not having insurance is not a tax?

Rick


----------



## Missourian (Feb 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.
> ...


 
I agree,  I'll give you a 'pre-existing conditions' exemption to age 30,  after that...you gamble at your own risk. 

Don't come crying at 50 years old cursing "those evil insurance companies". 

That's like telling the home owners insurance company that they must sell a policy to people after their house burns down,  then build thema new one.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Isn't that the whole point of the discussion regarding Health Care Reform?  The liberals want to make it a right.  They want to force everyone to have it, whether or not it is needed or affordable.

Immie


----------



## boedicca (Feb 1, 2011)

Missourian said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




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


----------



## boedicca (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Except for the fact that they specifically said it wasn't a tax during the legislative "deliberation".


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Hey Immie, did you ever watch this?

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 1, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



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

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



No, I have not seen it.  I have just scanned the first half of the transcripts.  I do not have much time today.

Is your point that we should not fear government involvement in health care?  That is what Wendell Potter said.  I hate to say this, but that does not change my opinion.  I still fear government involvement.  I simply no longer trust the corrupted individuals who call D.C. their home while they supposedly serve the nation.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

hboats said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...





> Exemptions from the coverage requirement are allowed for financial  hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage  for less than three months during a calendar year, aliens not lawfully  present in the United States, incarcerated individuals, those for whom  the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of household income, those with  incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2010, the threshold for  taxpayers under age 65 is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples)  and those residing outside of the United States.


April 5 2010


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Immaterial.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It is immaterial that our elected officials lied to us?  

Immie


----------



## hboats (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



From you very link posted above.



> The 2010 health care reform legislation contains two fundamental mandates: (i) most individuals must have qualifying health coverage or pay a *penalty*; and (ii) certain employers must offer and contribute to their workers health insurance or pay a *penalty*.



Now I wonder why it doesn't say tax instead of "penalty?"

Rick


----------



## hboats (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ok, this law firm that you linked to says that there are all of these exemptions from the individual mandate.  I'll take their word for it for now, even though I have yet to see it from the text of the actual law.

So, if the above exceptions are true, then we're right back in the same place we started before this law was passed.  Because the people who couldn't afford health insurance before still won't be able to afford it, and they're excluded from being forced to purchase it or pay the "penalty."

So, we're still going to have all of these exceptions to the individual mandate uninsured.  Where exactly is the fix to our current health care problem?

Rick


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


 No, it is immaterial as to the constitutionality of the bill.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 1, 2011)

hboats said:


> So, we're still going to have all of these exceptions to the individual mandate uninsured.  Where exactly is the fix to our current health care problem?
> 
> Rick





The objective isn't to fix health care.  The purpose is to funnel more income and wealth from group 4 to groups 1-3:

1.  Public Employee Unions
2.  The Poor
3.  The Ruling Elite
4.  The rest of us who work hard and take responsibility for ourselves and our families


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

hboats said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...


They will qualify for medicaid...which many in those income groups don't, as of now. There are also tax credits for low income people that will pay for their insurance. So, no, it isn't right back where we started from.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2011)

The notion that the mandate is constitutional because the government has the authority to collect taxes may be some of the more impressive mental gymnastics undertaken so far. Are liberals really trying to argue that government has the authority to make people do whatever they want as long as they collect a 'tax' for non-compliance? Sounds a bit more absurd stated a different way doesn't it libs. But that is exactly what you're saying government has the power to do. 

Many libs have attempted to cite various parts of the constitution such as the general welfare clause oar the their taxing power. The reality is few 'experts' have argued those positions. The constitutionality question has always centered around the commerce clause. While government may have the authority to regulate commerce, I fail to see how that allows them to create commerce.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 1, 2011)

I am still amazed  this conversation is going on frankly.....the obama that was voted for by one and all here has already gone on record ..HE AGREES that the mandate et al is, well, not a good idea and took Hilary to task for it&#8230;on national TV. I&#8217;ll let him tell it in the vids and commentary below.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1SMV3ok58&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


and 


    OBAMA: Let&#8217;s break down what she really means by a mandate. What&#8217;s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she&#8217;s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

    Here&#8217;s the concern. If you haven&#8217;t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don&#8217;t buy a house is they don&#8217;t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That&#8217;s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

CNN.com - Transcripts

oh and the Ellen DeGeneres show....

Eyeblast.tv




So, time to pony up the integrity-  those of you who like to toss  around the term(s) wingnut(s), lugnuts,  kooky cons and all such , heres your chance to take a similar insert expletive here Nut to task&#8230;have at it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 1, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Just watch it when you have the time and make your own determinations.


----------



## Samson (Feb 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> I am still amazed  this conversation is going on frankly.....the obama that was voted for by one and all here has already gone on record ..HE AGREES that the mandate et al is, well, not a good idea and took Hilary to task for iton national TV. Ill let him tell it in the vids and commentary below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Health Judge Uses Obama's Words Against Him*Tuesday, 01 Feb 2011 09:19 AM Article Font Size     



> In ruling against President Obamas health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obamas own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
> 
> *I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,* Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.




Read more on Newsmax.com: Health Judge Uses Obama's Words Against Him 
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


----------



## Liability (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...



Although I think Jilly's conclusion that the Judge is irresponsible is absurd, I must nevertheless agree with her in part.

The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed.  Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).  



> Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional
> flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem,
> severing any problematic portions while leaving the
> remainder intact. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of
> ...


  Id.

There, the SCOTUS said (pretty clearly) otherwise.  See it here:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-861P.ZO  (Look at p. 28 for the quoted excerpt, above.)


----------



## Trajan (Feb 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...





> The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed.



Yes I  see that HOWEVER the BILL and its progenitors said many times and openly the mandate is the one imperative in the bill that is a MUST, its a "lynch pin"........see my point?
Its in the amicus brief pdf I posted  a few pages back...


----------



## Liability (Feb 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Oh, I got ya!  Here, let me QUOTE his Honor:



> (4) Severability
> Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress&#8217; power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, *I note that the defendants have acknowledged
> that the individual mandate and the Act&#8217;s health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms &#8220;cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].*&#8221; See, e.g., Def. Opp. at 40.


 Judge's Opinion, p. 63 of 78 found @ http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/013111healthcareruling.pdf  {Note: I added the emphasis.}

The lefties may bitch and moan about it and attempt to smear the Judge, but they themselves SAID that it cannot be severed.  

Apparently, then, taking them at their own word is somehow unfair.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Still answering questions with questions, huh?...  Insurance also protects you from the other drivers who may not be excellent drivers...  But if you don't drive you don't need to purchase car insurance...  With 0bamacare, all are being required to carry insurance, which is similar to asking the non-drivers to carry car insurance....
> ...



I have met people who never go to the doctor, even when they get sick. That is why the ACA carves out an exception for people based on religion. I think that destroys anything you are arguing about how everyone will eventually go to a doctor, because the law itself admits not everyone will.


----------



## signelect (Feb 1, 2011)

You know I am still learning how to do this posting thing but one thing I am learning is that from the tone the left leaner have never created a job in their lives and probably belong to the SEIU that I read so much about.


----------



## Liability (Feb 1, 2011)

I really enjoyed this portion (footnote 30) of the Judge's written opinion:



> That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.30
> 
> * * * *
> _______________________________
> ...



QUOTING the fork-tongued President is GREAT stuff.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 1, 2011)

I really like the analogy with the original Boston Tea Party.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...




Wrong, If the ruling Defies the constitutions intent then it is activism.

of course there is some room for interpretation in all things But usually the intent of the Constitution is pretty clear.

IMO it is very clear that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the Power to force you to buy anything. 

Therefore the Mandate is unconstitutional.

If you can explain to me how them being able to force you to buy Insurance based on the Commerce clause will not lead to almost unlimited power on their parts to force you to do or Buy anything then please do.

IMO if they can force us to buy Insurance based on the Commerce clause, where does it stop, whats next. Forcing us to buy certain cars? Or better windows? Ours is a government of limited and defined powers. The Individual mandate in my eyes, opens up massive new Powers with almost no limit.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Ah, well...the Rethuglicans were for mandated insurance before they were against it, as BFGN's post a few pages back shows.

But who is counting?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


But they do force you to purchase Medicare....


----------



## Intense (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



It is a Tax, not a Purchase.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


 Okay, keep deluding yourself.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Brilliant comeback, dude. Anyone with half a mind would have described how purchasing Medicare through taxation is not a purchase.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


yes, someone with only half a mind would have
have at it


----------



## Ravi (Feb 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Whatever.


----------



## Intense (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ravi, who is deluding who? How else does the Government get the Constitutional Authority and the funds to run the Program??? Please explain...


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 1, 2011)

Intense said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Magic Pixie ferries?


----------



## jillian (Feb 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



it's a purchase because you get something for it.

given that the federal government has the right to tax, i think we can agree that if it's a tax, there's no question it's constitutional.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


if it was a purchase, you could choose NOT TO MAKE THE PURCHASE


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Well, its not a tax, so enough said!

This thing is unconstitutional plain and simple!

Just like I have been saying from the very beginning.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> if it was a purchase, you could choose NOT TO MAKE THE PURCHASE



Details details....


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 1, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> > A federal judge has ruled that the health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in March is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law "must be declared void."
> >
> ...





There's several things in the law that I like, but the individual mandate is not one of them. It's a crappy idea that should have been left in the dumpster behind the Heritage Foundation.

And was there ever any doubt that this was going to the Supremes? Eight of the votes are foregone conclusions, imo, which once again makes Justice Kennedy the arbiter of national policy.

Personally, if this law gets stuck down by SCOTUS I'll see it as a victory for health care reform, because it will shove the single-payer option back into the middle of the table.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 1, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...





No, we do not purchase Medicare.   We pay a tax now which is a transfer payment to existing Medicare recipients.  Most of us who are not retired don't believe we will get the Medicare we've been promised. It's not like we have prepaid for an insurance policy that is waiting for us to claim it.   All that we can look forward to is the government raising taxes on the poor young working shlubs, what few there may be, in order to pay for rationed care on our behalf.

I don't know about you, but when I PURCHASE (voluntarily) something, I don't get ripped off in such a manner.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



it is a tax for NOT purchasing...you cannot separate the reason from the event. 


(and remember it wasn't a tax before it was). 

did you support it  when he made the argument that is wasn't a tax but a fee? 


lets say we must now purchase an electric vehicle even if you don't drive? you okay with that?


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 1, 2011)

boedicca said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > So, we're still going to have all of these exceptions to the individual mandate uninsured.  Where exactly is the fix to our current health care problem?
> ...







2 and 4 can be the same thing, you know.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 1, 2011)

how about they make a national healthcare option where you elect to be taxed to cover the cost
and you can opt out if you want to


----------



## boedicca (Feb 1, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...




Pardon me.  By "The Poor" I mean the Sacred Cow Poor who live on the dole, not the ones who are impoverished by taxes yet maintain the dignity to keep working instead of being a dependent upon the government.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> how about they make a national healthcare option where you elect to be taxed to cover the cost
> and you can opt out if you want to



nope. the gov. knows best, they will engage in a huge ponzi scheme so they can keep the spice ( cash) flowing into their coffers. frankly they'd be more honest if they just said they want to extend medicare to everyone and use that as a vehicle seeking legality. 

But honesty has nothing to do with this- as I laid out a coupla of pages ago- you have folks who will back him after, repeatedly have been lied to straight to their face, by Obama, several times. He has changed the language, meanings,  financial hurdles  to make the bill go, and even then he had to bribe his won party to go along. 

its all  about winning, period. The duplicity is right there in video and transcripts, he'll say anything flip flop and flip back again ala it wasn't a tax its a fee, now its a tax again. They don't care, that people will sacrifice their integrity to sppt. this , well, really flummoxes me.


----------



## Zander (Feb 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


but but but,.....Think about the children!!!!..they deserve clean air and water, free health care, and a $185,000 debt at birth (that is before Obamacare) don't they?   

Obama campaigned that "it's not a tax". Democrat Congressmen told us "it's not a tax".  Now that it looks like the whole POS is getting thrown out  ... well now it's a tax!!   They'll say anything......


----------



## Liability (Feb 1, 2011)

It was not a tax before it was a tax.

President Obama is channeling John F'n Lurch Kerry!


----------



## asterism (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Go ahead and roll the dice on how people vote on single payer.  Not "public option" and not "exchanges," but full on single payer.

It actually is Constitutional if it's a tax, but the public won't go for it.  And if you've ever been treated at the VA you wouldn't either.


----------



## asterism (Feb 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> how about they make a national healthcare option where you elect to be taxed to cover the cost
> and you can opt out if you want to



The case being made is that it's equivalent to National Security of the Interstate Highway System.  It's "infrastructure."  Funny how they didn't write the legislation that way.  I wonder why.


----------



## Liability (Feb 1, 2011)

asterism said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I don't think so.

A good argument can be made that "if" it "is" a "tax," then it is absolutely UnConstitutional ON THAT BASIS since it not apportioned.

In any event, the Administration contorted itself to DENY that it is a 'tax."


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 1, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Personally, if this law gets stuck down by SCOTUS I'll see it as a victory for health care reform, because it will shove the single-payer option back into the middle of the table.



I disagree.  The support of single payer is even less than the current law and the same goes for those in the Congress.  Plus, as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency single payer is DOA.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Does that mean that property tax is a purchase because people get an education for their children? What about people that never participate in Medicare, is it a purchase for them also?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 1, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


and if property tax is purchasing education, then can people without kids opt out of that part of it?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 2, 2011)

No, you can't opt out of property taxes...property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



no. same as i couldn't opt out of having any part of my taxes go for iraq or for baby bush's million dollar study on whether prayer works.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> No, you can't opt out of property taxes...property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.



if that is true then you will also be required to by a GM green car. The company that is emoploying thousands of mexicans in Mexico.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I never saw a property tax levied by the federal government.  It is an important distinction between fed powers and state/local powers.
One that doubtless eludes you, "counselor."


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 2, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Who pays for the medical bills of the guy who chooses not to buy insurance, gets sick, and then files for bankruptcy?


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 2, 2011)

How much would premiums increase if every healthy 20-something year old canceled their policy?


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> No, you can't opt out of property taxes...property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.



Property taxes (if you are referring to the taxes we pay to the States and localities on our homes and real estate holdings) are levied not by the Federal Government, but by the States (and localities).  So, no.  You cannot opt out of them.  

*But* the fact that STATE imposed property taxes are not a violation of he Constitution tells us NOTHING about the Constitutionality of Medicare or "Health care."   The reason is pretty basic, too:

The States have authority to do some things which the Federal Government has *not* been granted such authority to do.


----------



## urdrwho (Feb 2, 2011)

I agree with your argument.  If the health care reform plan is constitutional, it is also constitutional to force city dwellers to buy auto insurance.  The argument is made that at some point you will use health care.  That is a false argument.  There are young people that will be killed instantly in accidents and may never use health care.  So not "all" will get to use health care.

So it is with auto insurance and city dwellers.  Some may at some point need auto insurance and they should share in the risk pool to pay for those that can not or will not pay.

Wonder how such an idea would sit with the people in the Manhattan high rise, urban dwellers?  They would probably cry foul just like the liberal minded actor Mr Baldwin did when New York wanted to take more taxes from him.

Even more fun would be to create a new health care reform and charge the Hollywood set health premiums as a percentage of income without a cap.  Let me see, Charlie Sheen makes $2 million an episode.....that income would create one heck of a health insurance premium.

The Hollywood elite that tell us how we should cough up more tax would cry like wolves at the moon.   For some reason they think that when things get bad, they feel it more. 

"Whats interesting about celebrities is the fact that theres a certain hemisphere in their brain thats more lit up than yours and mine. And when things get bad, it becomes much more painful for them and frightening for them than your traditional businessman."




Dr.House said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> I agree with your argument.  If the health care reform plan is constitutional, it is also constitutional to force city dwellers to buy auto insurance.  The argument is made that at some point you will use health care.  That is a false argument.  There are young people that will be killed instantly in accidents and may never use health care.  So not "all" will get to use health care.
> 
> So it is with auto insurance and city dwellers.  Some may at some point need auto insurance and they should share in the risk pool to pay for those that can not or will not pay.
> 
> ...



The "logic" of comparing the Obamacare mandated health insurance to the requirement that drivers must have insurance to register their cars lacks validity.  

A driver's license is a license.  It is a privilege.  It is not a "right."  STATES may condition the ability of its people to register (and drive) cars upon the requirement of having insurance.  

Nowhere, however, in our Federal Constitution was authority granted to Congress to legislate that "we, the People" can be required to purchase insurance.  Congress can legislate interstate commerce, but that's not akin to telling us WHAT we MUST purchase.

Now, if the STATES tried to tell ALL of us (whether we own a car, have a license or wish to drive at all) that we must pay some *across the board* tax to create an insurance pool for the benefit of those who do drive, there might be a small problem.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 2, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Are you downright stupid that you don't remember this conversation from yesterday?

You've answered your own question.  When they file for bankruptcy the medical providers pay the bills.  Of course they must count unreimbursed expenses in their fees.  But how is that different from universal insurance?  In both cases responsible people subsidize irresponsible people.  But in the present circumstance it is only people who use medical services doing the subsidizing.  Under Obamacare it is everyone.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 2, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




True, but that isn't stopping the Federal Gubmint from trying to find ways to tax property.  

I predicted some years ago that the Feds would one day place a "property tax" on the balances in savings and investment accounts.     In essence, the death tax is just such a tax - but I'm sure they are looking at ways to do this while one is still alive.


----------



## Zander (Feb 2, 2011)

Leftwing Translation of this thread: 



			
				 Leftwingers who have posted on this thread said:
			
		

> We really don't care about the lies, kickbacks, and assorted shady schemes used to pass Obamacare, we still want it.   We don't care if it bankrupts the country, and destroys our medical system, we still want it. We don't care that Obama and the Democrats that passed this POS law swore up and down that "it's not a tax!" - if calling it a tax means we can keep it- it's now a tax- and we STILL WANT IT.   If you disagree with us you are a "wingnut"  extremist who hates children and drowns puppies.



I think that sums it up pretty well!


----------



## Sallow (Feb 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> 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?


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 2, 2011)

Why is it so hard for Americans to do good things for each other and the nation? Who controls and decides if an idea is good or bad and why?  Everyone with healthcare, pays now for everyone without HC who need medical services. Spreading the cost around seems like the fair, sensible, and humane thing to do. 

"There is nothing inherently wrong with spending 17 per cent of GDP on health care if the result is a really healthy population. Just like there is nothing wrong with a "big" budget deficit if the money goes to making good jobs for working people, cleaning up their cities and environment and bettering schools instead of making rich financiers richer.  But given the fact that countless pregnant women go without sonograms, diabetes is near epidemic proportions, dialysis patients on average die within five years (in Japan they live 20) and, most significantly, the number of primary care doctors remains very low -- taking preventive care off the agenda for most -- the US health care system is a travesty."  Carl Ginsburg: The Actually Existing Health Care System

# Is the uninsured problem still that serious?    ANSWER Need for UHC


I revised this but this will do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Why is it so hard for Americans to do good things for each other and the nation? Who controls and decides if an idea is good or bad and why?  Everyone with healthcare, pays now for everyone without HC who need medical services. Spreading the cost around seems like the fair, sensible, and humane thing to do.
> 
> "There is nothing inherently wrong with spending 17 per cent of GDP on health care if the result is a really healthy population. Just like there is nothing wrong with a "big" budget deficit if the money goes to making good jobs for working people, cleaning up their cities and environment and bettering schools instead of making rich financiers richer.  But given the fact that countless pregnant women go without sonograms, diabetes is near epidemic proportions, dialysis patients on average die within five years (in Japan they live 20) and, most significantly, the number of primary care doctors remains very low -- taking preventive care off the agenda for most -- the US health care system is a travesty."  Carl Ginsburg: The Actually Existing Health Care System
> 
> ...




Who says it has ever been hard for Americans to do good things for Americans?

WE decide what ideas are good and which is bad.  Who the devil do you imagine SHOULD decide?

Those who pay for health-care now (via group insurance policies, etc) do so *voluntarily*.  That whole "choice" thing really seems to irritate the liberal ass.

*On what basis* do you imagine that you (or any other group of people for that matter) have any right to compel me to provide a portion of my wealth to you or to others?    Try to answer JUST that question, if you can.  Note:  I'm not asking you to tell me if you think it's moral to get me to assist those who are unable to help themselves.  I will hazard the guess ahead of time.  Your notions of what constitutes "morality" advise you that it is moral to get those with some spare change to assist those lacking it.  but, again, that is NOT the question.

The question is:  on what BASIS do you imagine that you have a right to compel me to be so "giving?"

It's one thing to ask for help.  It's another thing to compel it.  So, I am seriously seeking your answer to the question of "on what basis" can you claim the right or the authority to compel it?


----------



## Sallow (Feb 2, 2011)

Line-item tax returns!

Just in time too..whew.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.



How on earth do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## urdrwho (Feb 2, 2011)

The quote below was the premise.  Due to the uninsured, If they can mandate you purchase health insurance then they should be able to mandate you purchase auto insurance to keep the risk pool happy.  They could mandate and mandate and mandate all in the name of public good. 

After elected, the elected Ones should go to work two days.....one day to drive to Washington and the next day to drive away from Washington.  I would feel safer!

"Now, if the STATES tried to tell ALL of us (whether we own a car, have a license or wish to drive at all) that we must pay some across the board tax to create an insurance pool for the benefit of those who do drive, there might be a small problem."


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.
> ...



I'm having a real tough time making that connection myself.


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, if this law gets stuck down by SCOTUS I'll see it as a victory for health care reform, because it will shove the single-payer option back into the middle of the table.
> ...




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.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> 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.



There are all kinds of things that can be done that have been suggested numberous times. Here are a few mentioned by Big Fitz on another thread.


1. End state and federal mandates on insurance. Let people pick the type of coverage they want just like car, homeowners and life insurance.

2. Force open pricing by all medical agencies and facilities for all treatments so people may comparison sop.

3. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines increasing the size of the pool of competition.

4. End restrictions on separating medical facilities from what is currently called "insurance".

5. End tax exemptions to businesses that pay employees insurance but give it to the individual account holder.

6. End commercial pharmaceutical advertising. Since that prohibition was ended in 1994, prices have increased over 300% for drugs and development while advertising budgets shot through the roof increasing drug costs.

7. Institute 'loser pays' tort reform. This ends frivolent lawsuits and ambulance chasers that force facilities to practice "defensive mediine".

8.BAN all federal government provision or administration of health care with the only exception being for active military personnel. Veterans must seek private care.

9. BAN federal tax dollars from being spent on health care related subsidation. this includes privatization of Medicare and medicaid on the federal level. Seek private companies to take over and administer these programs.

10. End all subsidies to health industry related businesses and individuals. Offer tax incentives to private individuals to give to health care charities.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 2, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Sheldon said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 2, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> Why is it so hard for Americans to do good things for each other and the nation? Who controls and decides if an idea is good or bad and why?  Everyone with healthcare, pays now for everyone without HC who need medical services. Spreading the cost around seems like the fair, sensible, and humane thing to do.
> 
> "There is nothing inherently wrong with spending 17 per cent of GDP on health care if the result is a really healthy population. Just like there is nothing wrong with a "big" budget deficit if the money goes to making good jobs for working people, cleaning up their cities and environment and bettering schools instead of making rich financiers richer.  But given the fact that countless pregnant women go without sonograms, diabetes is near epidemic proportions, dialysis patients on average die within five years (in Japan they live 20) and, most significantly, the number of primary care doctors remains very low -- taking preventive care off the agenda for most -- the US health care system is a travesty."  Carl Ginsburg: The Actually Existing Health Care System
> 
> ...



The way I see it is that in this particular instance it is the right wing that is trying to do what is right for the people of this great land.  President Obama's Health Care Reform is a disaster that I believe will seriously risk the ability of this nation to continue into the future.  Nipping it in the bud is good for all Americans... as long as we go back to the drawing board and work on real reform, that is.

Immie


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




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.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Yay..
> ...



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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sheldon said:
> ...



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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sheldon said:
> ...



+1

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Feb 2, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> 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 fuck that horribly confused phrasing means) Bush was president?


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 2, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Sheldon said:
> ...



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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> 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
> ...


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 (Feb 2, 2011)

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 (Feb 2, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Trajan (Feb 2, 2011)

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&#8217;t go back to the ultimate fail- car insurance comparisons....


----------



## grunt11b (Feb 2, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.
> ...



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!!!
> ...


----------



## Flopper (Feb 2, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


*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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


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


----------



## Flopper (Feb 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


*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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



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 (Feb 2, 2011)

Flopper said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


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


----------



## Megatron (Feb 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



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


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


fuck off pissant


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> 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 (Feb 3, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> 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.



Sheldon said:


> 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?


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


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





We could probably have a whole thread about what makes the health insurance industry unique from others. 


As far as the bold part, one reason I've read from an industry insider was that having a few large insurers protected by state boundaries gives them market share that they can use as leverage when negotiating prices with the local hospitals. But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of a few large corporations being insulated like this, just pointing out a silver lining that could be affected by changes in state autonomy to regulate the industry.

If we look at what the political climate is like, I think that interstate insurance has bipartisan support at the Federal level. Even if this law gets repealed, I think the state compacts will live on in its replacement. How well those compacts affect pricing, we'll see.

In my state, there's one bill in each house that proposes forming compacts with other states. The two are different because one proposes the mandates would be from the provider's state (the GOP bill, which died), and the Democrat bill had it like auto insurance where the minimum coverage mandates of the purchaser's state apply. But that bill is on hold until the Federal law gets sorted out.

Ultimately I think the Federal law has created more problems and hassles than it's solved. I would like to see states take the initiative and make compacts or out-of-state laws with eachother instead of waiting on the Feds to do something, but I guess Federal funding comes into play.

But wish in one hand and crap in the other I guess.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 3, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sheldon said:
> ...



Why make some compact at all? This issue is indeed not just a federal government issue. It's a government issue in principle. The government involved, state and local, just feel they gotta control things for the benefit of the people. Not only do we the people have to appeal to the federal government to get rid of this. Even if we did the states would still have the right to regulate the sale of health insurance as they saw fit, as you mentioned. So the people need to make as much noise to their state legislators about getting out of the way as at the federal level.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I agree most young people, (18-30) will carry insurance with or without the mandate, for several reasons.  If you wait till you have a serious health problem to buy insurance, you're taking a big risk.  If you're diagnosed with cancer or have an accident, are you going to delay medical treatment for possibly several months till you are enrolled in an insurance plan?  Also lower cost policies will be available with higher copays and deductibles.  Most of the 18-26 group will be on their parents policy.  Those that can't afford insurance will receive government assistance. The mandate will be needed to keep a relative small percent of the people from trying to beat the system.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Yep.
I disagree with a lot of people that say the law will not work without the mandate.  I read an article recently that estimated that the mandate would increase insurance coverage by less than 3%.  Without the mandate, you know insurance companies are going to cover their ass so they are not stuck covering people that wait till they are sick to take out coverage.  Most people get their insurance through group plans which offer open enrollment usually once a year, however it could be longer which makes taking out insurance only when you get sick a lot harder.   Even if government is not allowed to mandate coverage, employers can, particularly if they are faced with higher premiums if employees elect to be uninsured.  I'm sure there other ways that insurance companies and possibility government can persuade people to carry insurance.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 3, 2011)

Flopper said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The whole thing has pretty well become almost a joke anyway with more than 200 exemptions from the mandates already given to folks who didn't want to live under them, such folks of course being people the Administration does not wish to offend such as big unions.

For the mandates and associated taxes/penalties to kick in years before all the benefits kick in, it is inevitable there will be more exemptions.

The opinion from the Florida court is thoughtful and well written.  Some say why not just eliminate the mandates and allow all the rest?   I think that is a really bad idea because while the judge can and did specify what part of the law is unconstitutional, once the court starts plucking this or that out of it or inserting this or that into it, you have the courts actually writing legislation.   And that, in my opinion is also unconstitutional.


----------



## TominNH (Feb 3, 2011)

Oddball said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Doesnt anyone think it odd that Romneycare hasnt been declared unconstitutional?? It has the very same mandate.   In fact, it hasnt even been challenged  and it's almost 4 years old! Afterall, states cant required something that  violates the US constitution!! Just sayin.....


----------



## boedicca (Feb 3, 2011)

TominNH said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Do you know the difference between a State and the Federal Government and how they are treated in The Constitution?

btw, I don't support RomneyCare - it's a dismal failure as all government overreaches tend to be.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 3, 2011)

TominNH said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I'm not positive since I haven't looked at Romneycare in awhile, but I don't believe there was a mandate or you'll get fined for the individuals in that.  The State of Massachusetts gives a $219 (?  I'm working from memory here) tax credit or exemption for folks who have healthcare insurance.  Under Romneycare, those who do not have health insurance lose that $219 credit or exemption.   That isn't the same thing as a fine.  That is simply declaring that a person did not qualify for a tax break.

I am lobbying for the federal govenrment to get out of healthcare all together except for our Veterans.  But if the federal government is going to be involved, a tax credit to help people buy insurance is something I can easily live with.  But certainly those who do not buy insurance should not be entitled to the credit.


----------



## TominNH (Feb 3, 2011)

boedicca said:


> TominNH said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I dont understand your first point!!! Are you saying that states can pass laws that violate the US Constitution???? That is what you SEEM to be saying!!


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Possibly the compact is a good idea.  We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state.   I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana.  He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems.  It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches.  Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.

In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

Oddball said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



no. responsible as defined by normal people.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 3, 2011)

TominNH said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > TominNH said:
> ...



No.  She is saying that things that are unconstitutional for state governments to do might not be unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

Likewise, what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do may be well not be unconstitutional for the state governments to do.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> TominNH said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




states can't violate the federal constitution. they can give greater rights than the feds, but not less.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 3, 2011)

TominNH said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > TominNH said:
> ...




States are able to do things under the Constitution which are not enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

Whether or not RomneyCare is Constitutional is debatable, but if it is unconstitutional, it's not for the same reason as is ObamaCare.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TominNH said:
> ...


Yep, a point I've tried to make several times...and look who agrees:

"The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the  liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not  only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in  Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too  much," Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by  former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO) | TPMDC


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

Ravi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



the body of caselaw on the new deal legislation is pretty clear. this doesn't really deviate. and the same loons who hate the new deal legislation, hate this. 

doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

and yet, the loons don't get it.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


They just need activist judges...sigh.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I have always felt that the healthcare law is going to be revised regardless of what the Supreme Court says.  The Democrats new that the day it passed.  The cost savings in the law which are suppose to exceed the cost increase are based on estimates whose accuracy can't be determined until the law is implemented.  For example, most of the cost savings comes from increasing the utilization of medial facilities, reduction in loses due to unpaid medical bills, and reduction in overhead of the insurance companies.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TominNH said:
> ...



I didn't say that states could violate the federal constitution.  But the fact remains that states cannot do some things--say print money or declare war for example--that the feds can constitutionally do.  But the states can do things for which there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to do.  That was in fact the principle that the Tenth Amendment is based on.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Come on Foxy, stay up to date.

"As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011"

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov


----------



## TominNH (Feb 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> TominNH said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



That isnt possible. NO state law may violate the US consitution--- the Supremacy Clause of the constitution guarantees  that the federal government trumps state law. If it were NOT true, we would still have segregated schools since  states would be able to establish  separate but equal schools!!  The fact that they can not is settle law.

 So, in this case, Romneycare has NOT been declared unconstitutional. It hasnt even been challenged because everyone knows the state has that power to mandate insurance!! And that state mandate may NOT violate the US constitution! So,  we shall see what the USSC has to say. Most constitutional scholars say that the federal government does ineed have the power to mandate the healthcare law. Only strict constructionists think otherwise and they are in the distinct minority! And it wasnt that long ago when Republicans were saying that the only way to get national healthcare to work was to mandate it! So, one has to wonder if Republican opposition NOW is based on principle ( doubtful) or on political considerations! Im convinced that Republican opposition is purely politically based since they've supported the mandate in the past! Average Americans need to be very careful when following what the GOP leadership is taking them. There are things afoot that are certainly NOT in the best interests of most Americans!


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


The exemption are temporary and expire in 2014 when the remainder of the healthcare law goes into effect.  

Unions exempt from obamacare - Topix


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 3, 2011)

TominNH said:


> That isnt possible. NO state law may violate the US consitution--- the Supremacy Clause of the constitution guarantees  that the federal government trumps state law. If it were NOT true, we would still have segregated schools since  states would be able to establish  separate but equal schools!!  The fact that they can not is settle law.
> 
> So, in this case, Romneycare has NOT been declared unconstitutional. It hasnt even been challenged because everyone knows the state has that power to mandate insurance!! And that state mandate may NOT violate the US constitution!





Ok, for the 115th fucking time for the galactically stupid among us, RomneyCare is Constitutional *UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT*!  Capiche?


----------



## Trajan (Feb 3, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



so? why were they necessary?


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


The Affordable Care Act is designed to provide Americans with affordable, high-quality coverage options &#8211; while ensuring that those who like their current coverage can keep it.  Unfortunately, today, limited benefit plans, or &#8220;mini-med&#8221; plans are often the only type of insurance offered to some workers.  In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits.  In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits.  In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000. 

Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act.  While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer.  In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.  In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.  No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy.

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 3, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Possibly the compact is a good idea.  We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state.   I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana.  He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems.  It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches.  Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.
> 
> In the state I live in now, the Insurance Commission is very strong political so changes are not that easy to make.



And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves. 

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

What good is a government that cannot micromanage the affairs of its people?

Like, now, in NYC, the City government has decided not only that you can't smoke in bars and restaurants, but they have gone further.  Now they say you can't smoke in a park.  And no.  They aint kidding.  

Someday people could look back wistfully at the concept of personal liberty.  

The nanny state knows what's good for you and me and everybody in between and outside and everywhere else.  I know: for, they not only tell us so, they give directives.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly the compact is a good idea.  We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state.   I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana.  He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems.  It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches.  Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.
> ...


Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer.  A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company.  I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language.  I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits.  Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc..  Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 3, 2011)

*FYI

I you want to know what's in the healthcare law along with a timeline for implementation check out the following.  It's in very readable form.

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform*


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 3, 2011)

Some would say that the constitution is unconstitutional because fo the ammendments.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I don't jest at all. healthcare is a HUGE expense for an employer. Can you imagine the productivity a company, and growth to the economy and jobs if business wasn't saddled with that expense? But instead government has decided to make the lives of business that much more burdensome by tell them what types of plans they must purchase for their employees. The fact that 700+ business have been granted waivers because the increased burden it will put on them is only more evidence of what a wholly illogical solution to the problem obamacare is.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly the compact is a good idea.  We do need some regulation on health insurance companies but it certainly doesn't have to be that different from state to state.   I spoke to a friend of mine that worked at Humana.  He said that 95% of the state requirements are the same from state to state but the remaining 5% causes a lot of problems.  It's also difficult for a company to offer it's product in a new state if they do not offer it in surrounding states since there are so many regional companies that prefer to have the same insurance company for all of it's branches.  Then the insurance person(s) in their HR dept does not have to deal with several different companies each offering a number of plans.
> ...



Your logic is so flawed it is laughable. Why not get rid of all regulations on food. That way McDonalds could catch rats and grill them and be able to offer it as beef for 50 cents?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The more regulated things are, the less responsible it allows people to be. There is nothing flawed in my logic. Being a lib though yours definatly is. Despite the mountains of historical evidence about what happens to societies when their governments try to control too much, you continue to insist that government wipe your nose and ass from cradle to grave.

Te logic is we can improve health care best by taking measures that allow individuals to more easily afford services directly. Obamacare does none of that. By definition more regulation gives consumers less choice and generally raises the cost of goods and services. The problem with you libs is want everything, but no responsibility for yourselves. Get real for two fucking seconds. McD's would serve rat if there were no regulations? Because of course it's in every businesses best interest to treat their customers poorly.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So consumer protection is unnecessary, just cartel protection. Insurance cartels should be allowed to continue denying coverage for preexisting conditions, denying payment for expensive life saving treatments, cancel policy holders that are deemed a risk and continue their death panels. Your problem is your Monica Lewinsky urge for the rich and corporate. They are just the good guys that would never take advantage of the people. Because wealth makes you virtuous. 

WHY don't you consider some guys we call the founding fathers? Did they regulate corporations? Do you even KNOW???


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I have never claimed ALL regulation is bad. I believe in regulations for example that require businesses to inform people about their products (i.e. our beef is not rat (ridiculous as it would be for McD's to do that in the first place)). As far as health insurance goes however, it has certainly crossed the point where it is doing more harm than good. SOME regulation is necessary. But this notion that a business is going to screw its own customers if government doesn't keep them from doing so, is about as illogical an argument as one can make. Free market principles are what allow prices for goods and services to fall. Concepts like competition and broad spectrum of choices for the consumer. When government regulation starts interferring with the ability for those principles to work in the consumers favor and/or unneccessarily make it more difficult for business to do business, that's when there is too much regulation.

The things you mention an insurance company doing to people without regulation, in an ideal world where BOTH parties (the business and consumer) are responsible, the insurance company would at minimum have to print out the terms of it's policies. If their policy is to dump people for gettng sick or they don't want to accept people with pre-existing conditions, so be it. As long as the potential consumer is made aware of those terms beforehand, they are at least armed with the knowledge to make an informed decision. And if they don't like those terms they can shop another company for insurance.


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Egg-fucking-zackly.

My policy looks like a book.

But I really should take the personal responsibility of knowing how to comprehend a maze of terminology that requires law and medical degrees.

Back in the real world, most people don't have the time or education to decipher the novel of fine-print legalese in their policies. A job, kids, bills, errands, social life. We rely on the government to provide some basic consumer protections, so that insurance companies can't do something like, say, cancel your policy when they find out you get diagnosed with the bird flu.

Damn you, gubmints.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


*Your are right about one thing.  Healthcare is a huge expense to business.  This law significantly reduces that expense.  There are a number of problems in the law but increased business expense is not one of them.

The 700 waivers, which affect less than 1% of the policyholders in the country does not indicate any shortcoming in the law nor additional burden on employers.  These waivers allow insurance companies to provide policies with low annual caps on spending limits till 2014.  In 2014 caps on annual spending limits are not allowed.   

These waivers allow insurance companies to continue to provide mini-med policies until 2014.  These policies have low annual spending caps, often as low as only a few thousand dollars which make them useless in providing any catastrophic coverage.  In addition they have deductibles that make them useless in covering routine care.  The administration decide to allow these policies till 2014, feeling that poor quality insurance was better than nothing at all.  There is so little benefit in these policies, that the Senate is questioning whether these policies are actually health insurance policies.  These policies allow employers to claim they provide health insurance when in reality they provided almost nothing.  

The healthcare law is not a burden on businesses but to the contrary it significantly reduces the cost of providing healthcare coverage to employees.  For example:

·	In 2010 businesses with less than 25 employees and an average annual wage of less than $50,0000 received a tax credit of 35% of the cost to provide health insurance to employees.  This tax credit increases to 50% in 2014.

·	In 2014 the law creates state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges.  Through these exchanges businesses with less than 100 employees will be able to shop for insurance by filing a single form.  Cost to employers and employees are reduced by increased competition and credit for Medicaid eligible employees.

·	In 2014, to increase competition in the health exchanges, there will be a minimum of two multi-state plans. 

·	In 2014 businesses that acquire health insurance through the exchanges will be able to use employee vouchers for low-income employees to further reduce their cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

·	In 2016, the law permits states to form health care choice compacts and allows insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact.  This will lower cost to businesses by increasing the competition in the health insurance industry.


Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform
Tackling Mini-Med Policies - NYTimes.com
*


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> yeah..I am waiting for the federal government to invent a "fart" tax....You know....Carbon emissions.
> Yeah, boopie keeps leaving cryptic messages on here that she is some kind of legal expert.
> she provides nothing to support that claim other than she just "says so"...
> She has argued that Judge Vinson's ruling is "stupid" and there is no precedent for that ruling.
> She ignores the fact that the law has no severability clause. She denies the judge can make such a decision. yet she can provide no evidence no support for her claim.



actually, idiota,  i started off trying to explain the status of the law to you and the way cases are construed. you had no interest. you were rude and stupid.

i don't see a lot of upside in wasting time on people like you.

i don't try to teach pigs to talk. it doesn't work and it annoys the pigs. 

you aren't smart enough to discuss these issues.

as for the commerce clause, the caselaw makes pretty clear that it's fairly expansive.

the issue of the severability clause is irrelevant because courts will always err in favor of sustaining a law as opposed to being 'activist' and striking one down. therefore, if it is severable, they will sever it, regardless of whether the paragraph is included.... unless it specifically states in the law that it cannot be severed.

that is how it should work.  will it work that way? depends on whether kennedy is a hack like scalia and thomas.

thanks for playing. as for whether you believe me or not, i generally don't concern myself with what stupid people like you believe.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> Egg-fucking-zackly.
> 
> My policy looks like a book.
> 
> ...



That's your excuse? You don't have _time_ to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have _time_ to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's your excuse? You don't have _time_ to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have _time_ to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?



when you get your insurance through an employer, how much choice of policies do you think you get?

if you get a choice of two plans,. you're lucky. and then most people choose cost (hmo) versus picking their own out-of-network doctors. (which costs a lot more).

do you work? have you ever had to make real-life decisions about these things?


----------



## urdrwho (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Agree 100% !!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> *Your are right about one thing.  Healthcare is a huge expense to business.  This law significantly reduces that expense.  There are a number of problems in the law but increased business expense is not one of them.
> 
> The 700 waivers, which affect less than 1% of the policyholders in the country does not indicate any shortcoming in the law nor additional burden on employers.  These waivers allow insurance companies to provide policies with low annual caps on spending limits till 2014.  In 2014 caps on annual spending limits are not allowed.*


*

Most of those are to businesses and unions. So no it is not decreasing their expenses.   



Flopper said:



			These waivers allow insurance companies to continue to provide mini-med policies until 2014.  These policies have low annual spending caps, often as low as only a few thousand dollars which make them useless in providing any catastrophic coverage.  In addition they have deductibles that make them useless in covering routine care.  The administration decide to allow these policies till 2014, feeling that poor quality insurance was better than nothing at all.  There is so little benefit in these policies, that the Senate is questioning whether these policies are actually health insurance policies.  These policies allow employers to claim they provide health insurance when in reality they provided almost nothing.
		
Click to expand...


That doesn't change the fact that requiring a business to provide a different plan is going to cost them more money. An employer does not owe his/her employees the benefit of health insurance. If these  psuedo policies are useless work for a company that provides better. It is a bad idea for a society in general to shift responsibility for providing for onself from the individual to another.  



Flopper said:



			The healthcare law is not a burden on businesses but to the contrary it significantly reduces the cost of providing healthcare coverage to employees.  For example:

·	In 2010 businesses with less than 25 employees and an average annual wage of less than $50,0000 received a tax credit of 35% of the cost to provide health insurance to employees.  This tax credit increases to 50% in 2014.

·	In 2014 the law creates state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges.  Through these exchanges businesses with less than 100 employees will be able to shop for insurance by filing a single form.  Cost to employers and employees are reduced by increased competition and credit for Medicaid eligible employees.

·	In 2014, to increase competition in the health exchanges, there will be a minimum of two multi-state plans. 

·	In 2014 businesses that acquire health insurance through the exchanges will be able to use employee vouchers for low-income employees to further reduce their cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

·	In 2016, the law permits states to form health care choice compacts and allows insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact.  This will lower cost to businesses by increasing the competition in the health insurance industry.


Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform
Tackling Mini-Med Policies - NYTimes.com

Click to expand...

*
You are looking at this so wrong. All you see are costs going down to the purchases and you don't see the artificial mechanism government is resorting to in order to do that. Subsidies NEVER lower the purchase price of a product it simply changes who pays for it and how much. Since part of that cost is being shifted to an entity who is much less price sensative than an individual, what a company charges for it's product will actially go up, now down. So you see you haven't lower the cost of anything. When subsidize something you're basically shifting expense from an entity to whom money is an object to an entity to whom money is not an object and the price goes up.


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

actually, it's pretty naive.

first of all.. you can't have insurance available across state lines because the insurance companies will all base themselves in the state with the fewist regulations like banks do. (meaning the people get screwed for corporate profit... like with credit card companies).

and who are you going to find as a participating provider in california if you have united health care of maine coverage?

do you people even think about these things? health insurance is not a luxury that people can do without.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That's your excuse? You don't have _time_ to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have _time_ to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?
> ...



Non sequitur Jillian.  I certainly have worked at some sort of job since I was 15 until I retired last year.  I have been insured under company plans and I have purchased my own insurance.  In both cases I knew what coverages I had.

One of the reforms I think citizens should push for in healthcare however is to do away with company plans--except for self insured ones--and go to a system where eveybody purchases their own policy.  Employers could still contribute an amount toward your insurance plan if they wanted to, but everybody would own their policy that would go with them if they quit their job or changed jobs.  We need to enact other suggested reforms though that do address costs and encourage much more competition to make all private insurance more affordable.

The only involvement the federal government should have in this is:
1)  oversight of fraud or illegal practices by insurance companies.
2)  enforcement of anti-trust laws.
3)  proper and meaningful tort reform
4)  And I think the federal government should put together a catastrophic insurance plan similar to national flood insurance or earthquake insurance that would kick in for the super expensive illnesses or injuries.  Also remove mandates that insurance companies HAVE to cover runny noses, flu shots, and routine sore throats that people can pay for out of pocket.  Do that, and necessary healthcare insurance should be affordable for just about everybody who wants it.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That's your excuse? You don't have _time_ to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have _time_ to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?
> ...



That's exactly my situation actually. I don't have any choices. They're high deductible or low deductible. That fact that I don't really have to worry about a choice is the problem. How can you not see that. Why would I be respsonsbile consciouncous purchaser of an insurance plan if i don't have to be. What possible reason is there for me to take an interest in how my health care is paid for and what it covers other than morbid curiosity in a system like this. My whole fucking point Jill is the way we are doing things with health care and the way in which Obamacare only makes it worse, is only providing further incentive for people take less responsibility for their own health care costs.


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



actually, your whole point, bern, was that health insurance should be caveat emptor when you have no choices.

how stupid is that?

sheldon's point was that we rely on government regulations to make sure we don't get screwed given the fact that most of us HAVE NO CHOICES beyond high deductible or low deductible. and he is correct. you seem to have this bizarre view that you should be victimized by corporations.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.

If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Egg-fucking-zackly.
> ...




It's not an excuse, it's reality. You can rant about how degenerate everything is because no one takes personal responsibility, but that fact is that the actual policies are incredibly complex, written by lawyers and doctors for lawyers and doctors--people who have gone to higher education for years in order to read and write the nuances in the policies. That's why they make more money than the serfs like me.

You may not like it, but that's how the real world works. Turn the health insurance industry into a mandate-less Wild West, and a vast majority of people who aren't trained in lawyerspeak are going to get screwed in the policies, only to find it out when they need it most.

The state governments provide minimum coverage mandates so you *know* you won't be provided with a take-it-or-leave-it policy that only covers your second heart attack and a severe case of scurvy.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> It's not an excuse, it's reality. You can rant about how degenerate everything is because no one takes personal responsibility, but that fact is that the actual policies are incredibly complex, written by lawyers and doctors for lawyers and doctors--people who have gone to higher education for years in order to read and write the nuances in the policies. That's why they make more money than the serfs like me.



The above is the rant friend. The ranting made up excuse of a cynic. What course would that be exactly where I go and learn how to write insurance policies?



Sheldon said:


> You may not like it, but that's how the real world works. Turn the health insurance industry into a mandate-less Wild West, and a vast majority of people who aren't trained in lawyerspeak are going to get screwed in the policies, only to find it out when they need it most.



Again the words of a cynic. It is in no businesses best interest to screw over its customers. Have you considered that one reason they are allowed to make those policies so complex is because YOU (the consumer collective) don't seem to give two shits?


----------



## boedicca (Feb 4, 2011)

It's pretty sad to see people screech about how businesses are so intent on screwing over their customers and yet they trust the government with guns and taxes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

boedicca said:


> It's pretty sad to see people screech about how businesses are so intent on screwing over their customers and yet they trust the government with guns and taxes.




Some businesses do screw over their customers, but those that do usually don't last too long.  Somebody invariably rises up to provide the same products and services in a more ethical manner.  Only those bad businesses that operate hand in hand with government seem to go on and on for prolonged periods.

Generally, however, we have the choice of whether to do business with a private entity.

And generally we do not have the choice of whether to do business with government.

And therein is the primary affront and danger to our unalienable rights and liberties.


----------



## chanel (Feb 4, 2011)

And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

chanel said:


> And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?



only if regulations exist for them to enforce and only if they're funded properly.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

chanel said:


> And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?



That is the function of the state insurance board.  And I believe every state has one.  And you're right.  The function is to ensure that companies licensed to do business in a state are providing an honest product and administering claims properly.


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?
> ...



try the correct answer. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286875-post413.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



????  How is this responsive to what I said?


----------



## jillian (Feb 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



read my post in that link.

you know, the one that's right above yours.

if you don't see why it's responsive, hon, you aren't reading.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Okay touche'.  I didn't follow the link.  Now I have.  And I still don't think it is responsive.  Who writes the policy and regs for the insurance board other than the insurance board?  Our Insurance Commission sure does.  It has to submit these, and its request for a budget, to the Governor and legislature, but as long as it does its job, it is pretty well left alone to do its thing.

And it doesn't require a lot of budget/funding in order to do its job.  Its function is regulatory specifying certain dos and don'ts for the insurance companies and as an enforcement arm of the regulations.  It has the power to issue or revoke a license to sell insurance in the State of New Mexico.  Those who reject a ruling from the Insurance Commission wind up in court.  Sometimes the Commission wins.  Sometimes it loses.  But it has worked efficiently here for a lot of decades now.

And not one penny of federal money needs to be involved in that other than in a watchdog capacity to secure the unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights of the people.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2011)

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


i think the point she is making is do we have any proof these agencies are underfunded or that they don't have the necessary regulations to back them up


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Sort of.  My point was that it is the boards that write and enforce the regulations.  And they don't need a whole lot of budget in order to do that.  If the Insurance board or commission is NOT doing its job, the state legislature will be overwhelmed by angry business owners, homeowners, workers, etc. demanding something be done and that will be followed by a hasty exit of the Insurance Commissioner.  There is strong incentive for him to do his job well.  

And the fewer layers of bureaucracy that are involved, the fewer dollars are required out of my pocket in order to get that particular service.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.
> 
> If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.


If people were actually paying their own hospital bill, they would not check it because they wouldn't go into the hospital to begin with.

Bypass surgery $100,000
Knee replacement $40,000
Prostate Surgery $30,000


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.
> ...



Hm.  And yet, they ARE paying for it themselves because they choose to buy insurance or accept it from their employers in lieu of additional wages.  And the insurance companies distribute the risks around (that's why they call it gambling) which is part of the deal.  And as long as they are free to do that, obviously people are willing to plunk down their money to get such insurance.  Oh, and here's a cool part:  the insurance companies DESPITE paying shitloads for knee replacements, etc., STILL MANAGE to MAKE MONEY. 

Isn't that remarkable?

What do you call it again when a system is created by virtue of bargaining between consumers and purchasers -- shaped in part by healthy competition -- and both the vendors and the purchasers end up deriving *t*he very "benefits of the bargain" which they originally had sought to obtain?

I just know that there's a word for that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.
> ...



If they didn't have insurance they might or might not go to the hospital to begin with, that is true.  And if they had to have insurance in order to go to the hospital, that would be a powerful incentive to forego a new car or big screen TV or that cruise to Alaska and buy the damn insurance.  IF insurance can be made affordable.

So IF say the first one or two thousand or at least a few hundred of the first medical costs incurred was out of pocket - you actually pay the bill for your flu shot or the kids vaccination or to get the busted finger splinted or whatever - you WILL look at the bill.  And you WILL question any unusual charge that appears on it.

Okay you need that prostate surgery that will cost more than the initial large deductible.  That's where your private insurance kicks in.

But they find cancer and it has metasticized and you're looking at an expensive course of treatment that exceeds your private insurance coverage.

That's when a catastrophic insurance policy, perhaps managed by the federal government, would kick in.   So few people need that kind of coverage, however, that if pretty much everybody participates, it shouldn't put a heavy burden on the taxpayer.

Do this, plus tort reform and bring insurance companies under anti trust laws so that they are allowed to compete across state lines anywhere, and you will have insurance that pretty much everybody can afford......again.

Those that can afford it and don't, will still get healthcare.  They'll also have a huge bill to pay off and they will be required to set up a plan to pay it.  That is another powerful incentive to bite the bullet and buy the insurance.

And the taxpayer will need to contribute very little to the government to accomplish all that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 4, 2011)

Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on that because I found that a very interesting fact if true.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.
> 
> I wonder if there are any statistics available on that because I found that a very interesting fact if true.


the real comparison to make is those on medicaid vs those on PRIVATE insurance
people with NO insurance at all, are less likely to use any medical service


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


*There are 92 major milestones in the law.  I think you are disregarding 90 of them and concentrating on the provision to extend Medicaid coverage to individuals that have incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4 and a combination of tax credits and subsidies for employees with incomes up to 4 times the poverty level to purchase insurance on the exchanges.  

Employers can continue to offer group insurance plans of their choosing just as they do now, purchase insurance off the insurance exchange, issues vouchers to employees to purchase off the exchanges, or do nothing.  One of the major purposes of the insurance exchanges is to create larger market of insurance providers increasing the competition.

Most of the cost saving in the law comes from increase utilization of medical facilities, elimination of unpaid medical bills, elimination of duplicate services in Medicaid and Medicare, and reduction in overhead of health insurance companies.


In all the cost analysis, the most important benefits can not be itemized.  How do put a value on a healthier America, 35 million people that can afford to go to doctor when they are sick?.  Unpaid healthcare bills will no longer be the leading cause of bankruptcy.  Thousands of homes will not go into foreclosure because the owner spent ever cent paying for healthcare of a family member.  People with communicably disease can get treatment.  Small business owners will be able to provide health insurance to it's employers.


I guess I am overly sensitive to this issue as I have seen a close friend, father of 2 kids, and an asset to the communality pass away because he could not afford an operation and cancer treatments. *


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.
> ...


I can relate to that.  Last year, I went to doctor had a few tests ended up in the hospital with an operation.  The total cost was about $50,000.  There are not a lot of people that don't have that kind of money.  

Having spent hundreds of hours in emergency rooms, doctors offices, and hospital waiting rooms, I don't go along with the idea that people will overuse medical facilities just because someone else is paying for it.  I can think of about thousands things I would rather do, than spent 8 sitting in the emergency room waiting for a doctor to poke, probe, and stick needles in me.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



this one caught ,my eye, how does this get accomplished?



> elimination of unpaid medical bills


...




> incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4



question that hit me out of nowhere, what happens if we eliminate the tax credit that provides sending money to non net payers that puts them above the poverty line? if they drop back below that could mean oh, 10-15 million people...


----------



## Flopper (Feb 5, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Insurance coverage eliminates unpaid medical bills because they are paid by the insurance company.  Only co-pays and deductibles are collected from the patient, often at the time of service.  The additional revenue received by medical service providers due to elimination of unpaid bills and the increase in revenue due to higher utilization is the basis for reducing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.  These funds are used to partially support the healthcare law.  Some see this as a cut in Medicare and Medicaid but it really isn't.  What's happening is medical service providers receive more revenues due to implementation of law.  Those revenues are taken back by the government by reducing reimbursement rates providing some of the funds to operate the system.


I am no sure how the different states handle Medicaid eligibility. If you are on Medicaid because of low income, you must qualify each year. Part of the qualification is supplying your tax return from the previous year.  If your income rises above the threshold, you lose Medicaid assistance but I think there is a gradual reduction in benefits.  This may differ from state to state.  Most people think Medicaid is run by the Feds.  Actually, it's a state program run by each state.  If the program meets federal  guidelines, then states get matching federal funds.


----------



## urdrwho (Feb 8, 2011)

I agree with some of what you said.

I need to steer you from the anti-trust exemption so that you can speak to the problem without someone attacking you.

I looked into the history of anti-trust and insurance.  All it means is that insurance companies can share underwriting information.  Sharing underwriting information actually adds to competition.  If each insurance company had to underwrite every area of the country themselves , the only companies that have the deep pockets to do so are the very, very large companies.    The Anti-trust exemption means, if you want to go into the insurance business you can buy the underwriting data that was already supplied by other insurance companies.  No anti-trust exception and they could not share the information about claims.  The small insurance companies would not be able to go into an area that has no claims history and the small companies would disappear.  The same would be true for car insurance, home insurance, company insurance, etc.  Only the very large would survive and that is not good for competition.  The Blues would probably like it to be dropped because they are the big dog.

At a town hall meeting I had the chance to bring the anti-trust exemption before a politician.  He had no idea why anti-trust was given or what it did.  Ignorance of politicians is no excuse and they all act like little parrots, singing the same song.  

Government run catastrophic insurance. I lived in a State that tried it with car insurance and it was a financial disaster.  The State rather quickly quashed the entire plan.  From what my friends show me, years later that State is still trying to pay off the debt of the Cat. program.  Back in 1990 - "The unfunded liability of the Pennsylvania automobile Catastrophic Loss Benefits Continuation Fund has declined $30 million since last May, according to state officials.

Actuaries estimate the fund's current unfunded liability at $334.8 million, noted Insurance Commissioner Constance B. Foster and Budget Secretary Michael H. Hershock"

I 1000% agree that people need to start paying for their own small expenses.  Those small expenses aren't so small once people need to pay them for you.  Just like everyone else, those people that pay your invoices for you want to be paid, they want vacations, they want retirement funds and that costs money.



Foxfyre said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


----------



## urdrwho (Feb 8, 2011)

How or why would someone spend hundereds of hours in the emergency rooms, doctors offices, and hospital waiting rooms?  I am very close to retirement age and haven't spent that much time in facilities.   I guess my neighbor with multiple instances of cancer has spent such time in facilities.  He said that he has gone through about $300,000 in money and most all was paid by insurance.  Which really means it was paid by the other people that had insurance with his insurance company.



Flopper said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 8, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> I agree with some of what you said.
> 
> I need to steer you from the anti-trust exemption so that you can speak to the problem without someone attacking you.
> 
> ...



Good post friend, but a gentle suggestion.  If you will put your remarks BELOW the quotation you're responding to, it will be easier for others to track and follow your line of reasoning.

I disagree that antitrust laws are not applicable in the insurance process.  Right now states set up sweetheart deals with certain health insurance companies that pretty well effectively prevent other companies from competing in that state.  So unlike auto and property insurance companies that like to spread their risk over broad areas, the health insurance companies don't benefit so much from that so they try to corner the market in a smaller area.   Make the right campaign contributions or know the right people and it's a done deal.



> *Antitrust law definition:*
> Legislation enacted by the federal and various state governments to regulate trade and commerce by preventing unlawful restraints, price-fixing, and monopolies, to promote competition, and to encourage the production of quality goods and services at the lowest prices, with the primary goal of safeguarding public welfare by ensuring that consumer demands will be met by the manufacture and sale of goods at reasonable prices.
> Antitrust Law



If we can manage to make the system conducive to the individual owning his/her policy instead of his/her employer, competition across state lines becomes attractive even to the insurance companies.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


I don&#8217;t see catastrophic insurance reducing healthcare cost for several reasons:

1.	The patient&#8217;s incentive to keep cost low ends when the deductible is met.  The cost of the average hospital visit is about $20,000.  If I have a $5,000 deductible, I doubt I would even look at the bill since my costs are fixed at $5,000 or less.  33% of our medical cost is for hospitals.  22% is for doctors of which just over half is spend in hospitals.  So catastrophic coverage would do little or nothing to lower almost half of our health care cost.
2.	Catastrophic insurance would presumably reduce the cost of routine healthcare.  However, that may not be the case.  We are all aware of the value of life saving and cost saving preventive medical care, early diagnosis, and maintenance drugs, yet high deductibles encourages people to eliminate these services.  This is exactly what we should not be doing.

Patients will never be a major force in reducing healthcare cost.  It is difficult and in some case impossible to compare the cost of various healthcare providers.  Call a doctor and ask how much to get rid of your hemorrhoids or your dizzy spells.  You know what you&#8217;re going to hear.  You have to see the doctor. He has to run tests and come up with a treatment plan that may or may not work.  Ask a doctor how much he charges to see you.  There are 3 rates doctors charge for an office visit, an introductory rate, intermediate, and advance.  The charges are determined after you visit.  If he draws blood and sends it to a lab.  The cost will depend on which lab and which tests.  If you really want to waste your time try to compare what an operation will cost you in various hospitals.  

Most patients lack the knowledge, the information, and sometimes the emotion stability to make informed healthcare choices so they depend on their doctor to help them make those choices, which may or may not be the best care for the money.   

I have had a number of serious illnesses in my immediate and extended family.  Sometimes there was good insurance and sometimes there was none.  I can never remember a time when medical care was chosen based on the cost.  It was always,&#8221; Doctor where can we get the best care for my wife or son.&#8221;


----------



## thereisnospoon (Feb 8, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Let's cut to the chase...After reading all this doom and gloom on this issue one question never gets answered......Is a government takeover of the health insurance of 310 million people(Obamacare) a good idea?
No one who supports socialized medicine can explain how it is the federal government will be able to administer such a gargantuan program. The numbers thrown about by the Obama administration are so far on the low side it doesn't reach the level of humorous.
Fair warning.....Obamacare or any other government run program that replaces the private market will be so expensive that none of us will be able to afford the premiums and the necessary tax increases to pay for it. Socialized medicine will force all medical professionals to become government employees because it is the government that will be dictating salaries and wages.  Under a socialized system care MUST be rationed. Death panels which are given such euphemisms  as  "end of life care and consultation" coupled with groups of bureaucrats who look at raw numbers to help them make decisions as to who gets to live and who they decide who dies.
Government run insurance for all? No way. It's unrealistic and unaffordable.
And most importantly, for now at least, it's unconstitutional. Hopefully it will stay that way.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


*For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were.  The government is delivering millions of new customers to them.  The health insurance companies increase our health care cost.  They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.

The healthcare law does not include government operations of any medical facilities, hiring of doctors, or delivery of any healthcare service.  There are some additional regulations on insurance companies, and the requirement for mandatory coverage. 

The health insurance companies collect the premiums, manage the claims process, and pay the claims just as they do now.  The states via Medicaid manage and pay the claims for those on Medicaid, just as before the healthcare law.  The most important roll of the federal government is to assist the states in setting up the state insurance exchanges, collect fees and taxes and see that the law is enforced.

Your comment seem to indicate that you are not very familiar with the law.  I suggest you read what the law actually does instead of the ramblings of right wing politicos.

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform*


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2011)

Flopper said:


> *For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were.  The government is delivering millions of new customers to them.  The health insurance companies increase our health care cost.  They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.*



For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise. You aren't addressing the price of services by simply saying 'eh, let government handle it'. You're simply subsdizing individual's expenses. And when you subsidize the cost of something, the price of that somethings goes UP, not down.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise.



Haven't you been arguing in the "death panel" threads that public insurance would entail spotty insurance coverage, necessitating great out-of-pocket spending (i.e. death panels)? I was under the impression that shifting great financial responsibility for health care onto consumers was actually a fear of yours.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were.  The government is delivering millions of new customers to them.  The health insurance companies increase our health care cost.  They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.*
> ...



That is precisely what happened when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect.  Up until then medical costs rose pretty much at the overall rate of inflation in general and basic healthcare was affordable for almost everybody.  If you look at the history of rising medical costs you see a sharp spike almost immediately after Medicare and Medicaid went into effect and that has continued unabated since.  Before Medicare/Medicaid, the uninsured paid off their medical debts in installments.  The few who couldn't afford an operation or treatments even with time payments were usually handled as charity cases or the community took up collections.

The fact that every entitlement implemented by the federal government has cost far more than its initial advertisement and every entitlement that has run for any time is currently broke and draining the national treasury should be our first clue.  Why anybody is naive enough to think a new entitlement would be any different is beyond me.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise.
> ...



I believe you're thinking of someone else. I have always and continue to advocate that individuals should take MORE responsibility for their health care finances. 

I believe in that thread what I have been arguing is that government would be forced to ration care, if it were provided by them, hence the term 'death panels'.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2011)

Flopper said:


> *For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were.  The government is delivering millions of new customers to them.  The health insurance companies increase our health care cost.  They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.*


No, they're merely implementing polices that will tend to drive them out of business....Which is the end game in order to force everyone into a gubmint-run scheme.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It is apparently beyond anyone that hasn't taken basic ecomomics. Maybe we need to address some more fundamental issues here and decide what we want. Questions like:

Do we just want to reduce what a person has to pay for health care?

or 

Is there a problem where the prices being charged for services are overly inflated and there are things we can do to bring them down?

Now if all 'we' care about is the first question, fine. Subsidize the shit out of it. Just know you aren't really addressing the issue and in fact you're making it worse.

On the other hand, if you tackle the second question, a side affect of that will be solving the first question. The problem with Obamacare is it's too long on trying to accomplish lowering what people pay and very short (and in cases where new taxes are being levied, making it worse) on addressing the cost of resources. I hope people can see the problem with subsidizing what the individual pays while the actual cost of the resources rise....especially when the reason they are rising is because of the subsidization.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Correlation is not cause and effect.  Your argument is seriously flawed. By far, the major cause of the rise in healthcare cost is not Medicare and Medicaid but rather new advancement in methods of diagnosing and treating diseases.  The growth of medical technology in the past 50 years has exceeded all advances made during the previous 2000 years.  These new tools to treat disease have come at a high cost.

The most common treatment for a heart disease 50 years ago was an injection of drugs, bed rest, followed by a warning to take it easy.  Today there&#8217;re many procedures used, most very expensive that include angioplasty, bypasses, and heart transplants. 

The family doctor using a $50 X-ray and possibly a blood test or so diagnosed most cancers.  Treatment options were limited and in many cases there was none. Today, a cancer diagnosis often involves MRI&#8217;s, CT Scans, and services of specialists.  Plus there are numerous new treatments in chemotherapy, surgical procedures, and radiation therapy. 

Then there is dialysis, kidney transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants, thousands of new drugs, and procedures not available 50 years ago.  

Medicare and Medicaid certainly contributed to the cost increase because these programs made it possible for millions of people to get expensive life saving medical care that they would have never been able get otherwise.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 9, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Nice try but I submit that there was as much medical advancement in the first 50-60 years of the 20th Century as there has been in the last 50-60 years--we advanced from using leeches and medicine man potions to a vaccine for polio and numerous other dangerous diseases, we learned what causes and how to prevent malaria and cholera and other mass killers, how to repair and rebuild shattered bones, and other great strides forward. And it didn't break the bank or significantly put health care out of reach of large numbers of people.

I'm not taking anything away from more recent medical advancements, but I think sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that the current prohibiitve costs were inevitable and unpreventable is short sighted at best.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


*If the primary reason for the increase in healthcare costs is Medicare and Medicaid, then we would expect that there would be a close correlation between the growth in the number of Medicare/Medicaid patients and the growth in healthcare costs.  Over the last 10 years, the number of Medicare/Medicaid patients increased only 35% but healthcare costs during that time period increased 101%.  Clearly, there must be other more important factors.  I ran the numbers for 1990 to 2000 and there was even less correlation.

https://www.cms.gov/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/09_2010.asp#TopOfPage

Health Care Spending Chart in United States 1960-2015 - Federal State Local*


----------

