Health Care Reform Supreme Court Case
Johnny Abruzzo
Philly Posts: 11,769
Arguments start today on Health Care Reform (I guess we're all supposed to call it Obamacare now - whatever).
I think it could go either way considering the current make up of the court, although I believe that the individual mandate is absolutely constitutional. (also, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea)
http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/26/health-reform-debate-arrives-in-the-supreme-court-why-its-not-about-obama/?iid=sl-main-lede
Here's the crux of it:
Hopefully if the individual mandate is overturned they leave the rest of the law in place, since it does a lot of good things to curb predatory health insurance companies.
I think it could go either way considering the current make up of the court, although I believe that the individual mandate is absolutely constitutional. (also, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea)
http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/26/health-reform-debate-arrives-in-the-supreme-court-why-its-not-about-obama/?iid=sl-main-lede
Here's the crux of it:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Commerce Clause, gives Congress the power “…to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” and over the years that power has been found to be very broad. The two most significant precedents for congressional commerce clause power are Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
Hopefully if the individual mandate is overturned they leave the rest of the law in place, since it does a lot of good things to curb predatory health insurance companies.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13;
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
all of it.
they will argue that goverment stepped into the world of business. if corporations are people, then why can't that person do business the way it wants to do business? why can't they charge whatever they want and why do they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions if they don't want to?
i would like to think that the court would rule along the lines of what the op stated, but come on....we are talking about a group of people, many of whom, gave president bush the white house. as such, i can not trust them to make the right decision in any case, let alone something that obama supports....
edit to add, i kinda hope they overturn it so we can start over and get the universal single payer system that was never on the table to begin with...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think that would be a good thing.
I don't think the individual mandate from the federal government to have to buy a product is constitutional. It certainly opens the door for other industries. Why would health insurance be the only product they could do this on? The federal government does not have police powers over the states. It is definitely an interesting argument. I believe the abuse of the interstate commerce clause has done much to expand the federal governments role in everyday lives of people. This could be the start of a new look at it, or to continue with the precedent that has been set. Definitely interesting.
I don't think they will overturn the whole thing though, and quite frankly I don't think they will overturn the individual mandate either. Time will tell on what it does to premium costs...I don't think it will stop them from rising, but hopefully it does. It seems to me it is a boondoggle for the insurance companies without really doing much to create the kind of competition that would actually lower premiums
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Keep dreaming. Obviously that would be the best case scenario, but it's not going to happen any time soon.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
but you are right. the dem way of negotiating is to put on the table less than what they really want and start from there....it is like costanza negotiating with nbc for less money...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
It was also a demand from the insurance industry, in exchange for not using pre-existing conditions to exclude people from coverage.
I'd love to know Newch.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
but the reasons why Health Care reform won't and can't work in the US is because of privatization and the corporate interests ...
there are too many mouths to feed ... every one wanting to profit ... doctors, clinics, surgeons, pharmaceuticals, insurance, hospitals, etc ...
you can't have a socialized health care system without socializing all the components ... that means not for profit hospitals, doctors, insurance, etc ...
So where in the world do you have a completely not for profit health care system that is adequate? Certainly not in Canada! Yet our system is somewhat adequate...far from perfect.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I don't think there's a perfect health care system anywhere. Many of us here would prefer a single payer system, or completely socialized system like the UK. It just doesn't seem like it's going to happen anytime soon. PPACA is a big step for this country and I just hope we don't backtrack.
Insurance companies making profit seems wrong to me. Others though, like doctors and pharmy's to an extent, deserve a stake in the profit for their hard work. Why shouldn't doctors profit from improving people's health? Why would they spend all that money and put in all that work on medical school if they weren't going to profit?
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
no ... it's far from perfect ... but the US spends the most on health care than any other country and that's because of the privatization model ... if everyone needs to profit - it's gonna cost a lot more ...
now ... obviously, it varies state to state and province to province but i'm telling you ... you don't know how lucky we have it here ... i am in NY a lot and it's crazy ... not only does it cost a lot ... they are always pushing the most profitable option meaning they want you to do surgery even tho you don't need it and its risky ... they want to prescribe you drugs you don't need that you then become addicted to ...
i think you misunderstand profit ... doctor's should get paid ... if we want to pay doctors $500k a year ... that's fine by me ... i'm nowhere implying that they should get paid a pittance ...
just take any standard illness and break down the costs ... if every line item is an entity that is privatized and requires profit ... it's pretty obvious the cost is going to be significantly more if it wasn't ... now, factor in the fact that if profit is the motivation - these private entities are going to not necessarily act in the interests of the patients ... but what is going to make that entity more profitable ...
I know how lucky we have it...trust me. I just think here in Ontario we sometimes are too narrow minded...for example, I have to have surgery on my foot, I have 2 options, go to a foot clinic pay 2500 out of my own pocket and be done with the surgery within 2 weeks, then recover or wait till the end of June and see an Orthopedic surgeon and have the surgery done sometime in the summer, cost I'm guessing close to 15 grand...now my question, why not allow foot clinics to bill this under OHIP? my personal opinion why the government says no, the nurses union and doctors association.
I just think that we need to look at all options.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
well ... i think what it boils down to is that slippery slope of privatization ... if we start allowing aspects of our health care system to be privatized - it changes the model altogether and eventually what we get is what the US has ... i'm not sure i agree with your assessment of nurses unions and doctors associations ... because if we went private ... these people could make more money and have better hours ... with our health care system stretched thin already ... most of the nurses/doctors are overworked and often underpaid ...
Haha good point
we can either pay for health care for all, or we can continue to have a massive military presence around the world to protect the interests that a few of us benefit from. we can't do both.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm not saying go private...but allowing more options outside the hospital...I have no problem with. The nurses union and doctors associations are big time lobbyists...just like teachers unions.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
if the clinic is prepared to accept the cost OHIP mandates for the procedure ... sure ... i agree ... but will they? ... and there are a lot of lobbyists ... do you have anything that shows me they are more influential than any other one? ... in any case - we are derailing this thread ...
i don't see how the US supreme court doesn't overturn this ...
Sure you can, have private health care and bring the troops home.
what is to respond too?
I believe it is state to state, but hospitals in MN or not-for-profit entities. They give care at a loss.
People have jobs in the healthcare industry. I think the ball park is around 3 million...there are probably more that are connected to it somehow. To completely socialize all aspects of it takes away a lot of jobs. Obviously the nurses and doctors would still have jobs but many would be making a lot less than they do now...I think the ripple effect of a massive change would be damaging to a lot of people in the short term. Long term it is probably the only thing that will keep premiums from going so high that people would rather pay the bill when they get sick rather than the premiums when they are healthy. So it is a sticky wicket. People who have no political career in mind would be the ones who would have to try to pass actual healthcare reform. The people who had the chance...60 democratic senators I am looking at you...worried too much about their own political future.
Who knows...I don't think this bill does anything to stop those costs from rising anymore than the last farm spending bill...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I agree with this 100%.
My big problem with Obamacare isn't the individual mandate, it is this half-ass approach to universal healthcare. If you want to social healthcare, then do it 100%. But with these opt-outs, opt-ins, waivers, privatization etc., it has become a trainwreck.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/health/health-care-insurance-lifetime-caps/index.html?hpt=hp_bn10
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
the conserative justices are expressing concerns about the consitutionality...
i am willing to bet that thomas and scalia were gonna vote to strike it down before hearing any arguments at all...
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... re-mandate
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah and Thomas won't say a thing about it. The guy is a little odd.
We're still paying for that 2004 election. :roll:
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Health care is interstate commerce. It comprises 1/6 of the economy. We live in Pennsylvania and took our son to Delaware for an operation. Sounds like interstate commerce to me. I am not misinterpreting the clause. The constitution says that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
The reason for the individual mandate is to keep insurance premiums at a reasonable level. It is to prevent what we actuaries call "adverse selection." Adverse selection is when only, say, sick people or bad drivers buy health insurance or car insurance. The original idea for the individual mandate was a right wing think tank, and it was demanded by insurance companies in negotiating PPACA.
All that said, the law should be able to function reasonably well without the individual mandate, if that's how the Court rules. The penalty is fairly toothless anyway; a maximum penalty of about $700 per year. As long as they don't throw the whole thing away... :twisted:
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
— Socrates
The headline doesn't quite match the story. Sounds like Kennedy (and maybe Roberts) could still be on the fence.
Doesn't look all that great for the mandate, but we'll see about the rest of the law, which is what I'm mainly concerned about. I still think it's constitutional, but I'm not in the Supreme Court, so that doesn't really matter.
I have trouble seeing the Court strike down a law that prevents insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and from rescinding coverage.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate agriculture and manufacturing crossing state lines for the purposes of sale. As products have become different in nature, it has been used to regulate many industries. Some of the things the court has held in the past under the commerce clause I consider to be a bastardization of intent. This is an expansion of the commerce clause to include the forcing of a transaction for the purposes of regulating it.
Congress shall regulate interstate commerce, not create commerce to regulate. A person could possible go through their life without medical care of any kind other than maybe preventative visits which could be paid out of pocket. So they are forcing that person to buy something they may well never use and not really allow them to simply pay out of pocket if the need shall arise. So in all reality they are creating a national exchange where insurance policies are bought and sold, they are forcing people to engage in that commerce, and then they are regulating it. You cannot start with the interpretation and build a law that creates the situation so that it can be regulated. We all may think it is a bad idea not to have health insurance, but it shouldn't be forced on people who may never use the product or who can pay for their healthcare out of pocket.
While fines for people may not be a lot to you, it could be a lot to them...same as it could be a lot to be required to have a certain level of coverage.
Am I wrong in thinking that insurance companies plans right now do not cross state lines? that their products are limited to and have to be registered in those states? and if that is the case, health insurance is not interstate commerce although they may pay for care that is administered in other states due to a variety of factors. it is conceivable to think that opening up the borders may well be good for the insurance industry or it may prove to raise costs...either way...by mandating the purchase of insurance on a national exchange, they are in fact CREATING interstate commerce to be regulated. This is an expansion of the most misinterpreted clause in the entire constitution. It is forcing commerce.
How about my next question, what is to stop other products deemed essential by the US government from being forced on the people?
Since industry and regulating of interstate commerce applies to the forcing of a product on people or face a penalty...what is to stop them from levying a fine on people who choose not to buy a hybrid? This is a dangerous door to open, but then again, people don't buy the slippery slope argument in discussions fed gov't police powers, so I'm not sure why I think they would possibly be interested here...It is a dangerous precedent.
Also, I love how people get mad at the conservative members of the SC for a perceived political agenda...but forget to mention that the "liberal" judges could be seen as doing the exact same thing.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan