Don't like the health insurance mandate? Thank the Republicans, it was their idea...

[Mursilis]

^^^^^^^^^
This is why some people will never understand how the system works. No bill with this big exposure does not get vetted before passage. If there was a snowballs chance in hell of USSC over turning it, then the Republicans would never of fought it as hard as they did.

FYI, the Supremes don't do advisory opinions.

 

[theeedude]

Since it would be operating at a loss, of course they would go out.



Yes, that would be the case in theory.



Why don't you? After all, what would happen in your scenario is that most of America would be without insurance. Now in the time before the government could invent a new system from scratch, perhaps 200 million people would suddenly find themselves helpless.

Now I admit that like those extreme Republicans who hoped for another 9/11, this would have a great appeal to a Party Loyalist. Those who died would be merely collateral damage for a Greater Good.

If a half million people died in the months without coverage, it would be worth it to you.

I suggest an alternative end. What would happen is that the insurance companies would be subsidized to pick up the tab because killing hundreds of thousands for such a noble goal as you suggest, however I think you would find that people wouldn't be too particular who they hung as a result. Consequently, the insurance companies will survive much like the financial sector and GM.

Subsidized insurance companies = government controlled insurance companies.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. This would be single payer government coverage processed by "private" companies. So your "alternative end" is not an alternative end at all, it's the goal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do we all agree that a ban on pre-existing condition exclusion without individual mandate would bankrupt the insurance companies? It's like allowing you to buy car accident insurance after the car is totaled. So if individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then HI companies need to hope and pray that pre-existing conditions ban, a very popular item, never gets put in place. Otherwise it's sudden death To have it done by a conservative USSC would have such a sweet irony to it, that I am tempted to give money to these legal efforts.

Subsidized insurance companies = government controlled insurance companies.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. This would be single payer government coverage processed by "private" companies. So your "alternative end" is not an alternative end at all, it's the goal.

So your goal is government control, yes? There wasn't a lot of control put on the investment industry if you recall.

 

[nonlnear]

^^^^^^^^^
This is why some people will never understand how the system works. No bill with this big exposure does not get vetted before passage. If there was a snowballs chance in hell of USSC over turning it, then the Republicans would never of fought it as hard as they did.

This is simply not true. A bill this big would never be overturned as a whole. The best the GOP could have ever hoped for was the elimination of some specific provisions and possibly returning some others for legislative modification. The "conservatives" on SCOTUS (the ones who would be likely to rule that any parts of the bill were unconstitutional) are the ones who like to make narrow rulings. That makes SCOTUS a poor choice of battleground for the GOP.

 

[theeedude]

So your goal is government control, yes? There wasn't a lot of control put on the investment industry if you recall.

Not yet, Republicans are fighting financial reform too, but that doesn't mean there won't be control put in on health insurance industry, if it becomes necessary.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not yet, Republicans are fighting financial reform too, but that doesn't mean there won't be control put in on health insurance industry, if it becomes necessary.

Define "necessary". I'm just wondering what you believe the limits of government are and should be. For example, should the government be above the Constitution if it is expedient for some purpose?

 

[theeedude]

Define "necessary". I'm just wondering what you believe the limits of government are and should be. For example, should the government be above the Constitution if it is expedient for some purpose?

If insurance companies exist only thanks to government subsidies, which they would if we have individual mandate with pre-existing condition ban, the government should basically run them as it sees fit. Not take them over per se, but make them an offer they can't refuse.
No, government should not be above the Constitution, but it should use the constitutional tools at its disposal.

 

[BoberFett]

I can always count on shadow9d9 for a chuckle.

 

[Genx87]

You guys are really digging at the bottom of the barrel. The idea is a good one and a good step towards UHC.

The point of this is to shut up the republican whiners. It was your plan. Hypocrisy at its best for your politicians and food for thought for the mouth breathing base.

My plan? When the republicans apparently suggested it nearly 20 years ago I was in no shape or form following politics nor cared.

Dont lecture me on digging at the bottom of the barrel. The Democrats are apparently trying to disown their own legislation by blaming it on a Republican plan from 20 years ago lmao.

 

[Fern]

You keep saying this, yet the obvious answer is that HI companies will just raise rates.

Fern

In a political vacuum, maybe, but that will create demand for a public option or medicaid expansion that will eventually replace them. The only way private HI survives is individual mandate.
Having an activist conservative USSC kill it would be just so precious, but I am afraid they are going to steer well clear of it

You're just circling back to ground that's already been covered.

The public option or medicaid expansion is likely to get stuck with the high risk people, leaving the lower risk profitable people in private HI. Then it's back to arguing how much will the federal gov subsidize the public option etc.

IMO, if the individual mandate is struck down this HC bill unravels. HI for those without pre-existing conditions will sky rocket given limits on insurance price ceilings for those with them. State regulatory bodies will not be able to deny the increased rates. As the rates climb, the penalty for no insurance will start looking damn attractive. If the rules really will let you sign up for insurance after a diagnosis of a major medical problem the problem compounds. The net effect is LESS people with insurance, not more.

I still note no one will address question of whether we must compensate shareholders of private insurance companies taken over or otherwise harmed by a gov/public plan.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If insurance companies exist only thanks to government subsidies, which they would if we have individual mandate with pre-existing condition ban, the government should basically run them as it sees fit. Not take them over per se, but make them an offer they can't refuse.
No, government should not be above the Constitution, but it should use the constitutional tools at its disposal.

That leads to two questions.

First, is it proper for the government to intentionally manipulate others to being dependent on it?

Second, what is the limit of the chain of control which the government has in this case. In other words you say the government could dictate to the insurance companies how they operate. Well, the practitioner gets paid from the insurance companies now. Are they merely an arm of the government too? What about the patient, who benefits from what the practitioner does who is paid by the insurance company who is controlled by the government. Should the government be allowed to dictate what you eat?

What's the limit here?

 

[Fern]

You guys are really digging at the bottom of the barrel. The idea is a good one and a good step towards UHC.

The point of this is to shut up the republican whiners. It was your plan. Hypocrisy at its best for your politicians and food for thought for the mouth breathing base.

So because some douch with an "R" behind his name proposed a plan, never voted on, years ago this is somehow now a 'Republican' plan?

What's next, when Obama trouts out an amnesty plan will it also be a 'Repub' plan because Mccain thought a couple of years ago, or because Reagan did it even earlier?

Sorry, but trying to credit this to repubs is 'fail'.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

My plan? When the republicans apparently suggested it nearly 20 years ago I was in no shape or form following politics nor cared.

Dont lecture me on digging at the bottom of the barrel. The Democrats are apparently trying to disown their own legislation by blaming it on a Republican plan from 20 years ago lmao.

Who is blaming anything? Just giving credit where it is due : ).

 

[shadow9d9]

So because some douch with an "R" behind his name proposed a plan, never voted on, years ago this is somehow now a 'Republican' plan?

What's next, when Obama trouts out an amnesty plan will it also be a 'Repub' plan because Mccain thought a couple of years ago, or because Reagan did it even earlier?

Sorry, but trying to credit this to repubs is 'fail'.

Fern

You didn't read the article. Lame.

 

[Fern]

You didn't read the article. Lame.

Don't need to. I've been watching libs make this claim on MSNBC.

OK, read the part not quoted in the OP's post. Lame article. This all started because the Repub counter to Hillary had a mandate in it.

The article also misses a big reason for many states lawsuit - it ain't the individual mandate, it's the medicaid expansion part.

Fern

 

[ebaycj]

You are incorrect. The SCOTUS has said that the Preamble is NOT a justification for law, and explicitly has excluded it.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/197/11/

Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905

Section 8. Not the preamble.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

 

[fallout man]

the way it was done is the flaw; not that it was done

stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Section 8. Not the preamble.

That's much better.

The government can raise taxes for the general welfare, however that doesn't address the compulsory purchase of a product or service, and that's what the legal arguments will most likely be.

On the side for compulsory insurance the argument will be made for a broad interpretation of what is an appropriate use of a tax.

On the side against, the argument will be that taxation for a specific service is the intent of Section 8, and not the creative use of taxation as a punitive measure who's ultimate aim is to force someone to buy coverage.

At least I expect that's how it will go down. No doubt there will be other legal arguments on both sides, but I expect (with the admission I may be incorrect) this will be the thread on which all hangs.

 

[woolfe9999]

Do we all agree that a ban on pre-existing condition exclusion without individual mandate would bankrupt the insurance companies? It's like allowing you to buy car accident insurance after the car is totaled. So if individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then HI companies need to hope and pray that pre-existing conditions ban, a very popular item, never gets put in place. Otherwise it's sudden death To have it done by a conservative USSC would have such a sweet irony to it, that I am tempted to give money to these legal efforts.

No, we don't all agree. That conclusion is based on a number of unsustainable factual assumptions.

This bill, with mandate, is predicted to cover about 32 million people. Of those, about 15 million will come in under the Medicaid expansion, with the rest going into private insurance. Of those, about 3 million are estimated to be currently uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. That means the other ~14 million are people without pre-existing conditions. Your argument is based on the assumption that if the mandate gets kicked by the SCOTUS, the insurance companies will be forced to take on 3 million sick people and get no new healthy customers to make up for it.

The first problem with that assumption is that striking the mandate doesn't strike the subsidy, which on average pays for about 2/3's of the premium costs. That is obviously a significant inducement for people to purchase insurance, with or without a mandate. Somehow I think if the federal government suddenly started saying they'd pay for 2/3's of the cost of BMW's, BMW sales might just skyrocket, no?

Let's conservatively assume, for the sake of argument, that with no mandate, only 5 million of those 14 million are induced by the subsidies to buy insurance. That means the insurance companies have to take on 3 million sick people, who they can charge 150&#37; of the standard premium costs, and 5 million non-sick people. It's probably not a good deal for the insurance companies. Collectively, they may lose some money on that.

However, insurance companies are currently doing very well off the employer-based large and small group markets. Mandate or no, those markets will continue to be their largest and most profitable markets. So even if the insurance companies lose some money in the individual market as a result of the bill minus its mandate, somehow I think they'll muddle through off the profits of their existing market which will likely be 90%+ of their revenue stream, and I doubt they'll lose terribly much in the individual market since the subsidies will induce enough healthy people to buy insurance.

Killing the mandate will weaken the cost containment strategy of the bill to some degree. It won't, however, kill off the insurance industry or force government subsidies to keep it afloat.

- wolf

 

[bamacre]

How would that sit?

I think most people here couldn't answer that question until they know whether there is an R or D next to your name.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wolf-
A major flaw is thinking that any plan will significantly control rising costs. As I posted elsewhere, many countries with UHC have a higher inflation rate than we do. The reason (again) is demographics.

I don't think there is as much savings as people believe. When the government can prevent Alzheimer's and other age related illnesses, then sure. Until then costs will go up dramatically. No government agency or bureau has the power to reverse aging.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wolf-
A major flaw is thinking that any plan will significantly control rising costs. As I posted elsewhere, many countries with UHC have a higher inflation rate than we do. The reason (again) is demographics.

I don't think there is as much savings as people believe. When the government can prevent Alzheimer's and other age related illnesses, then sure. Until then costs will go up dramatically. No government agency or bureau has the power to reverse aging.

I dont think *this* particular plan will have any more than small cost savings. Not sure I can agree about other possible plans.

You make a good point about where the real cost savings will ultimately emerge - from curing chronic diseases which we currently treat long term. You think a reasonable government role is to pump more money into medical research?

- wolf