Health Care Reform and the Law

[Beavah]

Yah, seemed like this should get spun off, eh?

 

The news media seems to have gone hog-wild when one partisan federal judge struck down a portion of the health care law (though they seem to have ignored the other federal courts that have either upheld the law or where the suit was dismissed outright).

 

At least this should guarantee a swift ruling by da 4th circuit, seeing as how two different Virginia district courts have ruled in contrary ways despite bein' only 100 miles apart.

 

Honestly, da notion of using the courts for this sort of political policy dispute I find to be truly inappropriate. Just a quest for an activist judge so that yeh can get your way. Not a conservative notion at all. Also really poor strategy if you're to the right on this thing, as it pushes things toward a government run single-payer program rather than da private exchange bein' contemplated currently.

 

Maybe someone can explain, though, why it's perfectly constitutional for me to have to buy into Medicare, but it's unconstitutional to give me a choice as to which private health care arrangement I buy into? Isn't da health care law the medical equivalent of school choice that we conservatives champion?

 

Now don't get me wrong, eh? I'm not a fan of the current health care reform act, which is a bloated, over-complex mess of legislation. But usin' weak constitutional arguments to try to reverse legislation in the courts is not a tactic that makes much sense. Da last thing we need is a more active judiciary substitutin' its views for our elected representatives in a policy debate. At least we can fire da representatives.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

The other suit in Virginia was from Liberty University and had little chance. I believe that it was dismissed because of a lack of standing but I might be wrong. The Michigan case was likewise thought to be unlikely to be successful.

 

The case today was considered a key case as is the one where 20 states have filed suit in Florida. If the Florida case is ruled in a similar manner, then I think that makes it likely that the insurance requirement will likely be found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

The difference between the current case and medicare is that you have the option of not accepting medicare. Even if people qualify for medicaid, they have the right to refuse the coverage. With this logic, a single payor is not viable because it would have to provide a way to opt out. The idea in Obamacare is to force young healthy people to pay premiums to cover older folks who have most of the long term diseases.

 

I see the ruling as merely upholding the constitution. An activist judge would have granted the non-severablitiy requested by the Virginia AG but the judge did not do so.

 

I concerned that those cold temps in your home are affecting your conservative logic circuits.

[CalicoPenn]

As I pointed out to one of my Republican friends today who was crowing about this particular victory for the Republicans, it's a bit ironic that this particular part of the bill that was found unconstitutional was suggested by the Republicans in the first place. But that's not where Beavah is trying to take this, I think.

 

I find it hard to believe that the government can force males to register for selective service (and if you want federal college financial aid, you can forget about it if you're an 18 year old male that hasn't registered for selective service) but can't require people to buy insurance to ensure that the government, and the insured, don't have to cover the costs of the uninsured. I don't really care if the 22 year old who doesn't want insurance thinks that all he's really going to do is pay for the elderly's care because he's young and invincible - the fact is that the 22 year old is going to participate in much riskier behavior than an 88 year old, and if he breaks his spine while doing a half-pipe while snow boarding, and is uninsured, the rest of us are going to end up covering that cost.

 

But even if it's unconstitutional for the federal government to require it, there is a way to work around that.

 

It seems to be perfectly constitutional for States to require people to purchase auto insurance. It's also perfectly constitutional for the Federal Government to "attach strings" to funding to the states. Why did states switch to 55 miles per hour? Because federal funding was tied to the switch - if states didn't lower their speed limits, they lost funding (it has since been adjusted by Congress which is why we now see higher speed limits in certain areas). Why did states change their drinking age from 18 to 21? Because there was federal funding tied to that change.

 

So given that, the work around is, for any state that accepts federal funding for Medicaid, require that the state ensure that all residents of the state is insured. How will the state do that? They'll require residents to purchase health insurance, just like they require residents to purchase auto insurance. And if it's consitutional for a state to require auto insurance, then it's consitutiional to for a state to require health insurance. If a state wants to opt out? Then they get no money for Medicaid - and let them figure out how to care for the indigent.

 

And finally, can we please call this what it is - it is not health Care Reform - it is Health Insurance Reform.

 

 

 

[vol_scouter]

CalicoPenn,

 

States require people to have automobile insurance to drive a car but do not require people to drive a car. Obama and the democrats want to force you to purchase insurance just because you are a citizen. That is an enormous difference. Your argument to me seems to be that there is some way to force the people to do something that the majority does not want. That is what is objectionable. The American people do not want this plan and to be forced to purchase insurance. In a democracy, the majority rules.

 

By the way if you want to be picky, it is medical care reform or medical insurance reform as Thomas Sowell pointed out a while back. Medical care is what is provided to patients whereas health care is also the participation of the patient in their care to achieve health (exercise, watch diets, etc.). No government or insurance company can provide health care. The bill sets up ways to determine what will be covered, what procedures that can be done, what screening tests will be done, etc. Then either all medical care bills are insurance reform or this is more than simple insurance reform.

[GernBlansten]

Vol, where are you getting this majority stat?

FoxNews poll? Care to share your reference? Or are you just spouting off again?

[vol_scouter]

I have not seen a recent poll (since the last election). Around the passage of the bill many polls were ~60% against and this has persisted through before the last election. I read these online from various independent pollsters and as reported on Fox news. The pollsters were independent of Fox. If you are unaware, it is not a surprise since many of my liberal friends never heard about the scandal in the justice department over the New Black Panthers case. Seems that a justice department that wanted to not enforce the law without consideration to race was not worthy to report. They seemed to think that it is alright for the justice department to enforce laws based on race.

[GernBlansten]

So, you got nothing Vol.

[vol_scouter]

Recent shows the most opposition and lowest approval in the ABC poll:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-health-care-reform.html

 

CNN http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf

 

from Mar 19-21 2010

Favor 39%

Oppose 59%

No opinion 2%

 

I can find many others. The medical care bill from the democrats has been unpopular nearly from the beginning.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Yup. We should just abolish the congress and go with media polls eh?

 

The public overwhelmingly supports repealing DADT.

The public overwhelmingly supports gay marriage.

The public overwhelmingly supports medical marijuana.

The public overwhelmingly supports repealing DADT.

The public overwhelmingly supports the public option.

 

...Depending on your source. Mine are from The Nation.

 

 

 

 

 

[skeptic]

The public overwhelmingly supports repealing Congress!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OldGreyEagle]

Gern and Vol, you guys are rapidly becomming "Ed & Merlyn Act II"

 

Is that what you really want?

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm with skeptic, eh? Da problem isn't with the executive so much as it is with the legislature.

 

As I nose into da ruling a bit, this seems like a very limited ruling that leaves most of the Health Care/Insurance reform intact. Just eliminates da one provision for individual mandate, for which there are any number of work-arounds. God only knows what they're thinking, since da individual mandate was first introduced by the likes of Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Orin Hatch as the only viable conservative alternative to da Clinton plan. If they completely disable da individual mandate, a single-payer government program like Medicare becomes almost inevitable in the medium to long term. Yah, I can opt not to use Medicare, but as a working fellow I can't opt out of paying for it, eh?

 

I also note that since the judge is a part-owner of a political consulting firm that took money to lobby against the bill, he had an obligation to recuse himself. My disgust at da federal judiciary engaging in paid political lobbying knows no bounds. Have they no sense of decency?

 

Beavah

 

[BrentAllen]

yeah, right, Gern. That's why gay marriage and marijuana passed in the most liberal state in the nation. Oh, wait - actually, neither one passed.

 

And Obamacare was so popular, it passed both chambers with flying colors, right? Oh, wait - no, they couldn't get it passed in the Senate, so they had to take it to reconcilliation where they just needed 51 votes to pass. And it was so popular, Democrats were touting their votes AGAINST it during this past election. Yep, sounds popular to me!

[Beavah]

Oh, wait - no, they couldn't get it passed in the Senate, so they had to take it to reconcilliation where they just needed 51 votes to pass.

 

Yah, 51 votes is passing in the Senate, eh? Actually, 50 votes plus a VP.

 

Da notion that every single piece of legislation should require a supermajority in the Senate because of the abuse of the filibuster is absurd.

 

The notion of unlimited debate is a fine thing, but it should be debate, eh? They should be standin' on the floor talkin' 'til they drop. It should not be a pain-free way to anonymously block the majority from legislating.

 

Just another case of gamesmanship rather than statesmanship. Folks who were never taught as children to share, because when yeh act responsibly toward others they act responsibly toward you.

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic]

Responsibility? That only applies to others, not me!?

 

Another idea that has become outdated, joining "common sense", its cousin.