Obamacare passes muster

[Beavah]

I always claimed it would, of course, but the bumblin' incompetence of da Obama administration's Solicitor General would give anyone pause. Roberts' opinion is an interestin' threading of the needle, but da essence of it comes down that the government's approach to the matter is just fine. The tap dancin' to avoid the Anti-Injunction act is truly humorous.

 

What's really novel, though, is da approach to the Medicare expansion. For the first time ever, the court has limited Congressional Power of the Purse. Now, as a conservative, I believe that big-government economic coercion of states and individuals is a real thing, and worth being thoughtful about restrictin'. I'd say it's better to restrict it just by makin' it smaller, though, not by havin' 9 old folks tryin' to decide whether their party's favorite initiative is "too coercive" or not.

 

Close as I can tell congress could get around da novel restriction by just repealing Medicaid and then re-passing Medicaid as da complete package if it wanted to, so the court ruling isn't particularly efficacious. What it does do is throw the door open to new litigation testin' the limits of this new-found restriction on congressional power of the purse and ability to adjust da terms of existing federal grant programs. That could open a fair bit of litigation on things like education mandates tied to federal education monies, eh? Includin' (for example) a liberal state arguin' that the BSA equal access act is unconstitutional, or a conservative state arguin' that da Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is unconstitutional.

 

Much as I agree with da principle behind Justice Roberts' arguments, da actual argument in this case was quite a novel stretch.

 

So Obamacare is a done deal, eh? Especially with da precedent that the current Senate Republicans have set for filibustering being a norm. Republicans aren't goin' to have the ability to repeal it before full implementation, and Romney knows it, which is why he's free to make bold proclamations about how he'd repeal it on day 1.

 

Now da question is, with opt-in for Medicaid expansion, do yeh think any states will be long-term hold-outs?

 

Beavah

 

[Brewmeister]

You are correct that it is now settled law. To the Average Joe who is not a political junkie it is now "settled by the Supreme Court."

 

Not to mention the billions already spent, and to be spent, by fall as it relates to implementation. There is absolutely no way that a political party will be able to repeal it in light of that, and the fact that any attempt to do so will be successfully cast as "taking away your health care."

 

Now I don't wander into the IP forums much at all 'cause that's not why I'm here, but to say I am worried about the future of this legislation and impact is an understatement. Laws have unitendended consequences and this is a big one.

 

I will predict right now that we are 10 years away from single payer, because there is no way that the private insurance industry can survive in a profit-restricted, take-all-comers environment, "mandate" to purchase insurance notwithstanding.

[johnponz]

I do not know why people call the Affordable Health Care Act Obama Care. This is a misrepresentation as this bill is no where close to what the President really wants, but rather is a creation of politics. The bill was watered down to get the 60 votes that are required in the senate to avoid a filibuster. It is still much better than what we had before. People seem to forget the clear "good" benefits that are in the bill, i.e. dependant coverage until 26, eletronic conversion of patient files, elimination of the lifetime max, etc.

 

The mandate to get health insurance is also a good thing. The people who do not have coverage, get care. No one is turned away at the Emergecy room door, and all of us end up paying for that. Shouldn't those people be in the total insurance pool so the rates of the others will be more fair.

 

I really believe many get brain washed by the likes of Glenn Beck and O'Reilly. It is really a shame how easily the American people are fooled.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[Stosh]

Now Obama can lay claim to the highest level of debt in American history AND the highest tax increase in American history. He has acquired the banking system, the automotive market, the medical market and he's still got a couple of months left to see what else he can amass for the government.

 

80% of the people have health care. Why didn't he just help the 20% instead of screwing over the 80% to help the 20%? Democratic economics 101.

 

Ever wonder what's going to happen to all those insurance company people when they lose their jobs?

 

This is like looking into the abyss.

 

Stosh

[johnponz]

The Act actually helps the 80% that have insurance too. Dependents covered until 26 and no lifetime max. There is story after story of people who thought they had great insurance coverage who lost everything because their lifetime max was hit. All it takes is one premature baby with Cancer and that max is hit quickly. These are heart wrenching stories of people with coverage that will now be able to take care of their sick infant and not face financial ruin.

 

By the way would it have been better if the banking industry and the auto industry went under I don't think so, and most of that bail out money has been paid back.

 

 

Romney says if elected he will repeal "Obamacare." Can one person do that? Doesn't he need to get the 60 votes in the senate to avoid filibuster of the repeal?

 

Obama Care? why don't we call the first bail out Busch's Bailout (it even has alliteration)

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[BS-87]

It's actually a pretty gloomy day for individual liberty.

 

I can't wait until fat people are getting taxed for the burden they place on healthcare providers and therein the taxpayers.

 

Maybe we can get taxed/held at gunpoint and forced to eat a menu designed by the First Lady. It's perfectly constitutional apparently.

 

I'd say I'm upset by the decision, but I'm more just disappointed that so many people are willing to overlook the implications of the mandate because it's the engine for some common sense regulation on insurance providers in the name of consumer protection.

 

This is an historic decision, and the ruling today could possibly bust the door wide open to tyranny if any current or future legislators or executives feel emboldened by the possibilities this ruling creates for a government engineered "utopia".

[johnponz]

The last argument is the best one that I have heard against the Act. However, it does not focus on the Act but rather the ruling itself. Although our President is one, I am not a constitutional attorney. However, I do not read the ruling to say that it is ok to tax behaviors but rather purchasing products or in this case not purchasing products.

 

We have been taxing like this in the affirmative for some time, e.g. the cigarette tax. There is clearly a tax penalty if you choose to purchase cigarettes. In this case there is a tax if you choose not to buy insurance. In my mind, this is way different then taxing someone for being overweight.

 

Additionally, we tax people to provide Medicare insurance. This is not that much different than that.

[Eagle92]

Look to MA as to what to expect: long waits to see a doctor and few docs practicing.

 

And yes 20% don't have insurance, but not all of that 20% use healthcare services like the ERs.

 

Also does not cover the illegal alien and medical care problem. I know lots of CA hospitals are having major problems because of it, and I know some stories that I still cannot believe.

[NJCubScouter]

I actually thought it would be declared completely unconstitutional, and that missed being the case by one vote. I knew Scalia, Alito and Thomas would decide it was unconstitutional, figured Roberts would join them and thought Kennedy would be the swing vote, as he has been many times. But I thought he would join his conservative brethren -- and I was right! But I was wrong about the Chief Justice. And I am glad I was wrong. But I can't chalk it up to the competence or incompetence of any attorneys, or anything other than that one justice made his decision, and that's the decision of the Court.

 

On the decision itself, or what I know of it so far, I generally agree with Beavah. There did seem to be a lot of dancing around constitutional principles, although I don't like commenting on legal decisions based solely on bits and snippets heard on the radio or from five-paragraph articles on the Internet that don't come close to explaining the legal issues. I just went to print out the decision but decided not to, after seeing that it was 193 pages (including the concurrences and dissents.) I printed out the six-page syllabus instead, and have skimmed that. After skimming the part about the Medicaid funding, I am going to have to really read it before I understand what their reasoning was. I also agree with Beavah on this -- I do not recall ever hearing of a case in which the federal government's ability to tie strings to federal funding was limited in any way on constitutional grounds. When I think back to my Constitutional Law course (there were actually several courses that covered the constitution, but only one was called that), the conclusion seemed to be that Congress could tie any strings it wanted to funding to the states or other levels of government. Not any more, I guess.

 

Just one thing, Beavah: "9 old folks"? You talking about the current Supreme Court? Watch who you're calling old. Justice Kagan is 52, Chief Justice Roberts is 57, Justice Sotomayor is 58 and Justice Alito is 62. Especially at my current age, I'd rather not think of any of them as old. (Although Kagan is the only one who is younger than I am.) I suspect you are even deeper in the same boat, Beavah, so let's be careful with "old", ok?

[johnponz]

Eagle 92 where are the facts to support your ascertation? A survey by Blue Cross Blue Shield on the 5th year anniversary of the Mass. law showed ...Two out of three adults in the state support the law, while 88 percent of doctors say it improved, or did not affect, the quality of care, (per the BCBS survey).

 

It is ironic that Romney who was for the law is now against it. There was a Meet the Press show where Romney clearly say that the Mass. law should be a model for the rest of the country. I guess he was for it before he was against it.

[Beavah]

Oh, yah, fer sure NJCubScouter. Mrs. Beavah definitely considers me an old coot, and I reckon I'd have to agree. From that perspective, those justices yeh mention are young whippersnappers.

 

Da full opinion is quite an interestin' and amusin' read.

 

BS-87 have yeh read even the Cliff Notes version yet? The court struck down the individual mandate with respect to the Commerce Clause, eh? So no forced purchases of broccoli. Then they upheld da essential provision of the individual mandate as fallin' within the Congress's powers of taxation.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[skeptic]

Since I often tend to think that people might actually be rational and maybe even act with some amount common sense, I put these thoughts out there.

 

First; when health care reform and adjustment has been a major issue for decades, and continues to be a problem, why has this even been the first actual legislation passed of any kind?

 

Second; since there are parts of this act that actually are beneficial to most people, and especially those with kids in higher education or facing very expensive health problems, why is there the baying of destruction of the entire bill by those against it? Why not instead start working on finding ways to amend and adjust going forward. Even the President has made statements regarding a willingness to fine tune and rework it.

 

Finally; why is it that almost none of the people in Congress, on either side, or the few independents, are willing to actually do their jobs? Leadership is about cooperation and putting the good of the group ahead of personal needs and gains. Or, at least that is what we in our unit attempt to get across to our scouts.

 

It is fairly obvious to me that we have not had true representative government for a long time. If there was a way to actually make it happen, real election reform and spending controls would do wonders. But as long as pols control our National and State centers of government, we will continue to see little constructive work come out of them. How to get "THAT" to happen is another conundrum.

 

Then, again, I tend to be rather skeptical that any of this is particularly likely. When less than 40% of the eligible voters even participate, and many of them are being led around by the ignorance of party politics and propagandists, there does not seem to be much hope. One can dream I suppose.

 

I am disappointed in my own generation. We were so inspired for a short time to actually make a difference. But, we let ourselves be beat down and mostly just became self centered and short sighted. We let dreams be killed or subdued by the loss of some of our strongest inspirational leaders, rather than use their losses as catalysts to farther sighted action. Most disastrously, we have allowed money and power to almost completely invalidate the voice of the majority. But what do I know? I'm just a semi-retired teacher and scout leader.

[BS-87]

Beavah, it takes reducing the proposition to its most absurd ends that will show best what the ruling is capable of.

_________________________________________________

 

It is the case that Congress feels the best way to get healthcare is by owning health insurance, and so they require all Americans to have X amount of coverage and provide documentation or be taxed for not doing so.

 

If you refuse to pay the tax, you will be arrested.

 

If you refuse to be arrested for something so absurd, you will be held at gunpoint.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Now let's apply this to something that should seem ridiculous.

 

Congress votes that the best food for health is Broccoli and as such all Americans are required to consume X amount and provide documentation of the consumption or be taxed for not doing so.

 

If you refuse to pay the tax, you will be arrested.

 

If you refuse to be arrested for something so absurd, you will be held at gunpoint.

 

It is therefore possible by this interpretation to say that Congress could move to make citizens eat broccoli at gunpoint.

 

[moosetracker]

If you refuse to pay the tax, you will be arrested.

 

If you refuse to be arrested for something so absurd, you will be held at gunpoint.

 

 

Right there shows you are listening to retoric and scare tactics (and lies) from the opposing side..

 

1) you will get tax..

2) Refuse to pay the tax and nothing happens... NOTHING the tax is not like the rest of your income tax.. It has no teeth to it.. Personnally, don't know it's purpose, as those not paying the health insurance, will not pay the tax..

 

(and where ever did you get the gunpoint scare tactic?.. That is absurd!.. You are not held at gunpoint for anything, even if you are a mass murderer!.. You better drop that off your story, if you want to try to continue with the scare tactic and make it believable to someone who does not read or listen to the news for themselves.)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm.... Yeh are pretty funny.

 

Might I suggest that yeh actually read the opinion? I know that's sort of not in fashion in modern America when it's just so much more titillating to read da wingnut blogs, but perhaps every now and again yeh can think of ol' Beavah and indulge me.

 

Just a thought.

 

B