Will the Supreme Court Kill Obamacare?

[Doppel]

I'm saying no because I just don't see it happening although I give maybe 30-40% odds, so I don't feel strongly on this. it will be monumentally embarrassing for obama if this happens. His greatest piece of legislation flushed down the toilet.

And my opinion is it should be. It is unconstitutional, even if the current healthcare situation is untenable. I believe single payer is the future.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

senseamp; ignoring everything in the thread in favor of just saying things FTW.


sactoking: I appriciate the history. This still does not mean that congress can't change its mind.

Electronic access to markets has created a situation in which people can be properly informed regarding what insurance company to go with. A national market would improve competition. Further, there's no reason we can't have requirements in different states that add-to the requirements of the federal government.

 

[Craig234]

I'm saying no because I just don't see it happening although I give maybe 30-40% odds, so I don't feel strongly on this. it will be monumentally embarrassing for obama if this happens. His greatest piece of legislation flushed down the toilet.

And my opinion is it should be. It is unconstitutional, even if the current healthcare situation is untenable. I believe single payer is the future.

How is single payer going to get passed, when Democrats were a vote or two short of *60* in the Senate, when they no longer have the House or anything like 60 Senate votes?

 

[Fern]

How is single payer going to get passed, when Democrats were a vote or two short of *60* in the Senate, when they no longer have the House or anything like 60 Senate votes?

Senate Democrats never got within sniffing range of 60.

It's been posted several times, I know I've posted it at least twice. Reid couldn't get more than about 24 (IIRC) Dem votes in the Senate. They were never close.

Yet your larger point is spot on. I see little chance for single payer because it would decimate a large part of an industry that has a powerful lobby. And I guess that the representatives (both House and Senate) from those few states where most of the insurance industry is located would fight tooth and nail to stop it.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

senseamp; ignoring everything in the thread in favor of just saying things FTW.

We'll see. If it's another 5:4, these guys are just politicians in robes. Which is fine. Getting a conservative alternative to universal single payer killed by a conservative court is fine by me.

 

[boomerang]

Obamacare: It's A Tough Sell.

 

[nageov3t]

We'll see. If it's another 5:4, these guys are just politicians in robes. Which is fine. Getting a conservative alternative to universal single payer killed by a conservative court is fine by me.

just so I'm clear on the breakdown...

5:4 against the mandate = politicians in robes
5:4 for the mandate = saviors of democracy and upholders of the republic?

 

[senseamp]

Senate Democrats never got within sniffing range of 60.

It's been posted several times, I know I've posted it at least twice. Reid couldn't get more than about 24 (IIRC) Dem votes in the Senate. They were never close.

Yet your larger point is spot on. I see little chance for single payer because it would decimate a large part of an industry that has a powerful lobby. And I guess that the representatives (both House and Senate) from those few states where most of the insurance industry is located would fight tooth and nail to stop it.

Fern

If individual mandate is overturned, it becomes a question of WHEN, not IF, we get universal single payer. The current system is broken, and individual mandate was the conservative solution. If you look in developed countries, you see universal single payer and/or individual mandate private insurance systems. If individual mandate is no longer an option, you are betting that the status quo survives indefinitely, but the trend is not your friend there. Status quo has a fatal free-rider problem, it's in a slow death spiral. The more people drop insurance, the more expensive it gets, because their medical bills are rolled into everyone else's, and the more expensive it gets, the more people drop out. Before you know it, only suckers and government are paying for health insurance, until the suckers run out. The only solution is to nip it in the bud and require people to not drop insurance and pass their costs onto others, but if pundits are to be believed, SCOTUS is about to nix that one. Barring that, the status quo is not in equilibrium, and the only path left for it is towards universal single payer.

 

[senseamp]

just so I'm clear on the breakdown...

5:4 against the mandate = politicians in robes
5:4 for the mandate = saviors of democracy and upholders of the republic?

No:
5:4 against the mandate = 9 politicians in robes
5:4 for the mandate = 8 politicians in robes.

 

[Craig234]

Senate Democrats never got within sniffing range of 60.

It's been posted several times, I know I've posted it at least twice. Reid couldn't get more than about 24 (IIRC) Dem votes in the Senate. They were never close.

Yet your larger point is spot on. I see little chance for single payer because it would decimate a large part of an industry that has a powerful lobby. And I guess that the representatives (both House and Senate) from those few states where most of the insurance industry is located would fight tooth and nail to stop it.

Fern

You're right, I switched a public option and single payer.

But it just makes the point stronger that Doppel's saying single payer is the future is not close - Bernie Sanders estimated only 8 to 10 votes for it in the Senate.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance.php

But a public option would be useful, that's what was close and now isn't.

 

[woolfe9999]

If individual mandate is overturned, it becomes a question of WHEN, not IF, we get universal single payer. The current system is broken, and individual mandate was the conservative solution. If you look in developed countries, you see universal single payer and/or individual mandate private insurance systems. If individual mandate is no longer an option, you are betting that the status quo survives indefinitely, but the trend is not your friend there. Status quo has a fatal free-rider problem, it's in a slow death spiral. The more people drop insurance, the more expensive it gets, because their medical bills are rolled into everyone else's, and the more expensive it gets, the more people drop out. Before you know it, only suckers and government are paying for health insurance, until the suckers run out. The only solution is to nip it in the bud and require people to not drop insurance and pass their costs onto others, but if pundits are to be believed, SCOTUS is about to nix that one. Barring that, the status quo is not in equilibrium, and the only path left for it is towards universal single payer.

This is true. However, do not underestimate the resolve of the GOP to block UHC even as the situation gets worse and worse for people. It's going to have to get to near universal rioting before they'll cave. I say we won't have any reform for another 20 years.

 

[Craig234]

No:
5:4 against the mandate = 9 politicians in robes
5:4 for the mandate = 8 politicians in robes.

So the Justices voting both that it is and isn't constitutional are all playing politics?

I guess you'd like to see the 'liberals' vote against Obamacare and the right for it?

 

[Craig234]

The right counts on its ability to spend money to shape public opinion for its own interests.

So they can destroy healthcare for people and still keep a lot of public support.

Remember how this largely started, with Reagan the hired gun to fight JFK on Medicare.

The wealthy have an agenda of more for them and less for everyone else. They've made gigantic shifts in wealth and are still getting elected. This is their agenda to shift wealth.

 

[senseamp]

So the Justices voting both that it is and isn't constitutional are all playing politics?

I guess you'd like to see the 'liberals' vote against Obamacare and the right for it?

No, that would be liberals voting to kill a conservative idea and conservatives voting to uphold it. While it makes more sense than the other way around, it would still be playing politics.

 

[Fern]

We'll see. If it's another 5:4, these guys are just politicians in robes. Which is fine. Getting a conservative alternative to universal single payer killed by a conservative court is fine by me.

The individual mandate is not a "conservative" thing at all.

Some Republicans may have thought it a good idea. But that is different from it being conservative.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

The individual mandate is not a "conservative" thing at all.

Some Republicans may have thought it a good idea. But that is different from it being conservative.

Fern

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

It came out of Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/about

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

You are free to argue that Heritage is not a conservative think tank.

 

[Craig234]

No, that would be liberals voting to kill a conservative idea and conservatives voting to uphold it. While it makes more sense than the other way around, it would still be playing politics.

So for the 8 justices, since voting either way is playing politics, how do they not play them?

By the way, a poll found 75% of Americans think this court will make a political ruling.

 

[senseamp]

So for the 8 justices, since voting either way is playing politics, how do they not play them?

Decisions would not be correlated to political affiliation at all.

By the way, a poll found 75% of Americans think this court will make a political ruling.

Contempt of court is a new national past time

 

[sactoking]

Electronic access to markets has created a situation in which people can be properly informed regarding what insurance company to go with. A national market would improve competition. Further, there's no reason we can't have requirements in different states that add-to the requirements of the federal government.

One of the big pro-federal regulation arguments is that it would bring about more equal regulation. In fact, as insurance becomes more globalized, that's the Euro Zone's biggest gripe about the American marketplace, that state regulation is too disparate. Of course, the US is much larger than any single Euro Zone country and the geographic diversity here is also much greater than in any European country so there's a strong case to be made against federal regulation in that regard.

Then you have to throw in disparate judicial climates in the US: if Colorado (a Personal Injury Protection state) were suddenly forced to use Medical Payments coverage by federal mandate, what happens to the decades or centuries of judicial precedent and what fills the void immediately?

Concerning your last statement, actually the supremacy clause prevents states from mandating stricter requirements than federal law allows. Once a federal law touches on a subject then the state is precluded from further regulating. For example, the National Risk Retention Act authorizes certain captive insurers called RRGs to operate under federal jurisdiction and the states in which the RRG operates effectively have no ability to regulate the RRG further. This is further evidenced in the Arizona and Alabama immigration laws; since the federal government regulates immigration the states are barred from passing their own, more stringent, laws on the same matter. There are a few notable exceptions, such as California being allowed stricter emissions standards than the EPA allows, but exceptions like that are granted through grandfathering and not carve-out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is true. However, do not underestimate the resolve of the GOP to block UHC even as the situation gets worse and worse for people. It's going to have to get to near universal rioting before they'll cave. I say we won't have any reform for another 20 years.

I say we won't have reform because people refuse to comprehend what that properly means. It comes all down to dollars and legislation. No it does not again for the hundredth time. It's about the facilitation of the relationship between provider and patient. While bean counters have an incredibly hard time with that, health care is all about that and that alone. Stop looking at providers as the enemy (which some do). If you want less expensive health care simply cutting reimbursements and squeezing more patients into an hour while creating regulations which make the job harder isn't the way. That's what has been happening. Doing the wrong thing even more won't help.

1) Get rid of over-managed health care. Stop trying to save 5 dollars by making practioners spend a hundred to get around it. Stop trying to dictate treatment by algorithmic means. When a gerontologist stops a med don't make them fill out form after form justifying what doesn't work.

2) Create incentives for people to buy insurance in a positive way. Stop trying to punish people which is why you have so much resistance. Maybe people are content to accept that but they shouldn't be surprised when others don't and shove it down their throat anyway. Near riot? That's what you are have now and it's not because the Reps would oppose UHC. It's at the hubris shown in telling the public what they will take and effectively STFU because Obama and his party knows what's best. Even if they happen to be right that doesn't do anything other that create a hostile situation. Get rid of the threshold for medical expenses related to premiums. Help people have the money to buy insurance.

3) If there's a problem with some aspect of insurance such as denial due to pre-existing conditions then address it instead of writing a 2700 page monstrosity that even the SCOTUS fully understand or have the resources to even read.

4) Want the government to nationalize health care? Start getting a Constitutional convention going because when Truman attempted to seize the steel industry it backfired spectacularly as well it should.

5) The government needs to get it's own programs in order. Medicaid and Medicare have become increasingly problematic from a practitioner perspective. Attempts to save money by saving pennies while making others spend pounds and hours doing the right thing is not helping. Perhaps there would be more confidence if the politicians got it and fixed their mess first. Of course that won't happen any quicker than UHC because they don't have a clue or give a crap, but they can deal with even larger problems because they are so capable. No they are not or else in the half century they'd have fixed medicaid.


That leaves figuring out how to streamline without strangling, address duplication of resources, plan for future needs, eliminate ridiculous constraints on everyday matters of medicine. Does anyone have a clue how much treating senile dementia will cost? Think that slashing budgets will fix it? It won't. It's going to take some creative thinking by those who are experts to tackle that alone. Pro tip- That isn't Obama or Pelosi or any of them. The politicians aren't going to fix any of this even if you toss them the keys.

The political process as it stands is absolutely inadequate to deal with the problems we are about to face it. We need a new paradigm to deal with this and other increasingly complex tasks. Surrendering ever increasing control to a body of woefully inadequate politicians isn't the answer. I think we need to have Congress guided by those who have a clue and Congress legislate based on expert solutions and that goes beyond health care. When the SCOTUS hasn't a good grasp on what's in a bill they are asked to rule on then we're in trouble.

 

[Lithium381]

get rid of it and let congress pass it again properly!

 

[cybrsage]

It's the Roberts Court. Do you think Roberts wants to be blamed every time someone is dropped from insurance for a pre-existing condition?

Do you honestly think Roberts cares about the effects of striking down an Unconstitutional Law? As a Supreme Court Judge, his entire focus is on upholding the Constitution, not caring if Mary is dropped from her insurance.

 

[cybrsage]

You are free to argue that Heritage is not a conservative think tank.

Of course it is. Liberal and Think cannot be used to describe the same thing.

 

[Bateluer]

If we're lucky, yes. But how often does the Government in general do whats in the best interest of the people?

 

[Lithium381]

If we're lucky, yes. But how often does the Government in general do whats in the best interest of the people?

see: North Korea, Soviet Russia, Communist China they all had the interest of the people at heart, just had a funny way of showing it