Unconstitutional Private Mandate

[Tunnelcat]

On to Supreme Court it goes. The U.S. Appeals Court has ruled that the Obamacare Insurance Mandate is unconstitutional. Can't say I'm sad about it, or surprised.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2 ... itutional/

[Foil]

This challenge has always been destined for the Supreme Court. Now it gets interesting.

[Tunnelcat]

Yeah, I just got my insurance rate quote for the next year AND I hit the big 55 this year, which really steps me up in the rate tables. The approximate 20% rate hikes I've been having thrown at me for the last 10 years will soon blow my budget. Being told I HAVE to buy private insurance without a cheaper alternative AND be penalized for it just rankles me. This is one Appeals Court decision I hope SCOTUS upholds.

[Will Robinson]

Yeah, I just got my insurance rate quote for the next year AND I hit the big 55 this year, which really steps me up in the rate tables. The approximate 20% rate hikes I've been having thrown at me for the last 10 years will soon blow my budget. Being told I HAVE to buy private insurance without a cheaper alternative AND be penalized for it just rankles me. This is one Appeals Court decision I hope SCOTUS upholds.

Obamacare was, if they told the truth about the accounting, already unsustainable even if the mandate was law.
Now, if the decision to strike it holds there is no way anyone can pretend there will be enough funding to cover all those that don't/can't afford to buy their own coverage.
Since you are hoping the mandate is struck down what do you think should happen to the plan as a whole?

[Top Gun]

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court doesn't touch the other provisions in the law, since there are several, particularly making it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, that do a great deal of good. That's why I'm glad that the appeals court ruled strictly on the mandated coverage; it's a lot better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[CUDA]

while I'm not a lawyer. I did stay at a Holiday in Express last night

the understanding that I have of the bill, is the way it was crafted the individual mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the bill. there-fore if that section is declared unconstitutional then the whole bill is such. but I could be wrong.

it has to happen once in my life

[null0010]

I'm going to make a prediction here:

The Supreme Court will either not hear the case, or, in the (in my opinion) unlikely event that they do, they will uphold the Healthcare Reform Act because of their love for corporate interests.

[Sergeant Thorne]

... making it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions ...

Funny that you hope for something that would undoubtedly hurt everyone else who has insurance. Insurance is a business, and their business is making more money than they pay out. You want the government to force them to accept what is in essence a guaranteed payout? The question is where are they going to recoup these guaranteed losses imposed by folks like you. Hell, maybe they'll package them and sell them on Wall Street...

[flip]

I wonder how this bill would have fared had just the private mandate been left out. It looked like a real effort and probably could have been enacted and then adapted where needed had they not put a trojan horse in it.

[callmeslick]

I wonder how this bill would have fared had just the private mandate been left out. It looked like a real effort and probably could have been enacted and then adapted where needed had they not put a trojan horse in it.

without the mandate, no insurer would want to touch this plan. If they are forced to cover all regardless of preconditions, and the young and healthy can opt out, the premiums would be obscene. Thus, my ongoing case for merely making Medicare birth to grave, with fees to pay for it that would be miniscule compared to what most folks pay for premiums.

[Tunnelcat]

That's why the mandate was put into the bill in the first place, to spread costs to everyone. That's the only reason that Obamacare can work at all. It depends on EVERYONE paying into the system to function. Take that out and the whole system may fall apart. My ONLY beef was that the mandate was for PRIVATE insurance. I'm dead set against 30% of my health care dollars going to fund private enterprise overhead costs. Medicare has overhead costs which are approximately 2% of claims. If Medicare from cradle to grave had been the mandate of choice in the first place, it would have been no problem for me.

[flip]

What the hell do I know but I'm pretty sure Medicare is on the chopping block. I'm all for dropping medicaid and having a full time job I can depend on for life and then a pension and healthcare plan from that same labor and company till the day I die that then carries over to my wife if she survives me. Too much? If so, then kiss my ass and loan me some money so I can be my own boss. Too much?

[Will Robinson]

That's why the mandate was put into the bill in the first place, to spread costs to everyone. That's the only reason that Obamacare can work at all. It depends on EVERYONE paying into the system to function. Take that out and the whole system may fall apart. My ONLY beef was that the mandate was for PRIVATE insurance. I'm dead set against 30% of my health care dollars going to fund private enterprise overhead costs. Medicare has overhead costs which are approximately 2% of claims. If Medicare from cradle to grave had been the mandate of choice in the first place, it would have been no problem for me.

Stop thinking of 'the government' and 'private enterprise' as two completely different things..one good, the other bad..when talking in terms of how your tax revenue is being spent because in both instances the elite power brokers are the ones getting all the gravy out of the way the money moves through the system. Instead focus on why the cost is too high and what will bring it down! ObamaCare doesn't bring it down any more than free market competition does! You are voting for the same outrageous expense just in a different wrapper!

Slick is dead on target when he talks about using the systems we already have in place to create a healthcare provider funded by the single payer (tax revenue). If you want government healthcare that is the only way to go.
The only thing to work out is what pork to cut and who's back to lay the tax on to fund it. So far, thanks to what it takes to get Party support and other deep pockets to campaign on to reach national office, no politicians are offering legislation anything close to that because real practical reform will neuter them.
That is why I shout about things like the FairTax and outlawing lobbiests and creating a disaster for the two party's by voting third party, etc. etc. Not because I drink that KoolAid or think those things are perfect but because things like that cut the nuts off of the bastards in Washington that will otherwise keep fooling the willful ignorants into maintaining the status quo which is ultimately going to bury us all!

[Top Gun]

... making it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions ...

Funny that you hope for something that would undoubtedly hurt everyone else who has insurance. Insurance is a business, and their business is making more money than they pay out. You want the government to force them to accept what is in essence a guaranteed payout? The question is where are they going to recoup these guaranteed losses imposed by folks like you. Hell, maybe they'll package them and sell them on Wall Street...

Treating basic human well-being as a pure business venture seems like a pretty obscene practice in my book. Perhaps that's why almost every other civilized country in the world has a single-payer option.

[Will Robinson]

... making it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions ...

Funny that you hope for something that would undoubtedly hurt everyone else who has insurance. Insurance is a business, and their business is making more money than they pay out. You want the government to force them to accept what is in essence a guaranteed payout? The question is where are they going to recoup these guaranteed losses imposed by folks like you. Hell, maybe they'll package them and sell them on Wall Street...

Treating basic human well-being as a pure business venture seems like a pretty obscene practice in my book. Perhaps that's why almost every other civilized country in the world has a single-payer option.

How many of those other places are delivering the treatment without making some very purely-business oriented rationing decisions? Does it really matter that much if you don't get the kidney you think you deserve because you can't afford it or because the government decided they can't?

[flip]

Disease and sickness is evolutions way of weeding out the weak and sick.

[Will Robinson]

The shovel ready solution might be that the government starts building clinics in every neighborhood, sponsors the whole process from hiring people to dig the dirt to pour the concrete slab all the way up to grants for medical students to intern in the clinics to repay the free education...training for nurses...etc. clerks...etc. etc. Put people to work running and maintaining the new government clinics and pharmacies.
And while we are fixing things that drive up costs...Dump the FDA bull★■◆● and create a global pharmaceutical brokerage.

Charge little or nothing for the care, means tested fees for treatment.
You get to put people to work, into schools etc. etc. instead of mandating insurance company's get a big piece of the pie! Insurance companies provide no component of healthcare. Take them out of the mix and care is not reduced at all. The insurance leech needs to burnt off of our hide.

[Will Robinson]

Disease and sickness is evolutions way of weeding out the weak and sick.

You left out the poor

[CUDA]

I think the thing that amazes me the most about this thread. is TC quoting a Fox link

[Tunnelcat]

Stop thinking of 'the government' and 'private enterprise' as two completely different things..one good, the other bad..when talking in terms of how your tax revenue is being spent because in both instances the elite power brokers are the ones getting all the gravy out of the way the money moves through the system. Instead focus on why the cost is too high and what will bring it down! ObamaCare doesn't bring it down any more than free market competition does! You are voting for the same outrageous expense just in a different wrapper!

Just one thing, why is the "government" overhead only 2%, when "private enterprise" is around 30%? If the government is so bad at it, why do they seem do it more cheaply? The main reason is because they don't skim PROFIT off the top, that's why!

But I definitely agree that Obamacare did NOTHING to reign in costs. That was my beef with it before and still is now. However, I don't think there's any way to reign in costs without some form of rationing when Americans have such inelastic demand for it. Private enterprise does it right now by shear high costs to the customer. Those who can't pay go without. The government is doing it through cutting payments to hospitals and doctors, so they stop taking Medicare patients. I don't see either system remaining functional in the near future.

I think the thing that amazes me the most about this thread. is TC quoting a Fox link

Yes CUDA, sometimes FOX does say something true, although it's rare.

[Spidey]

That's why the mandate was put into the bill in the first place, to spread costs to everyone. That's the only reason that Obamacare can work at all. It depends on EVERYONE paying into the system to function. Take that out and the whole system may fall apart.

The proof that this will not work is mandatory car insurance.

[woodchip]

Premiums will not come down unless all states are required to let all insurance companies do business in the state. Letting only 2 companies in to compete is one of the problems. The open market place will finally settle on how much rates should really be.

[Will Robinson]

..
Just one thing, why is the "government" overhead only 2%, when "private enterprise" is around 30%? ..

Just one thing back at ya. Why do you believe the government overhead is only 2%?!? In the past, looking at the real numbers not listening to their 'projections' their overhead has been as much as 75% when you tally revenue collected for something and subtract moneys paid out to recipients.
Remember the tax on ciggarettes? It was supposed to go to offset the cost caused by smokers...seen any of that money show up? I think we're talking 100% overhead on that one!

[Sergeant Thorne]

Funny that you hope for something that would undoubtedly hurt everyone else who has insurance. Insurance is a business, and their business is making more money than they pay out. You want the government to force them to accept what is in essence a guaranteed payout? The question is where are they going to recoup these guaranteed losses imposed by folks like you. Hell, maybe they'll package them and sell them on Wall Street...

Treating basic human well-being as a pure business venture seems like a pretty obscene practice in my book. Perhaps that's why almost every other civilized country in the world has a single-payer option.

Insurance is absolutely purely a business venture, Top Gun, despite your mis-characterization of it. The kind of manipulation you're talking about is against their business interests, and amounts to a government authored transfer of wealth (against our individual interests). I was half kidding with regard to Wall Street, but I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies tried to turn the government-mandated, risky insurance customers in much the same way that bad mortgages were unloaded to start the housing crisis. You've got the same situation--Government overstepping its mandate and insisting that businesses cater to special-interests in a way that is contrary to their business interests.

[Top Gun]

I know it is, but my argument is that it shouldn't be. The underlying business goal of increased profitability is at direct odds to the need to cover people with a wide range of underlying issues. And let me ask you, what's the viable alternative to mandating coverage regardless of condition? Just saying, "Well, I'm sorry you have MS, but looks like you're fucked"?

[Spidey]

My solution would be affordable health care, but hey…I’m just an idiot.

And JFTR there have always been insurance available for people with pre-existing conditions, It is very expensive, and you have to wait something like 2 years before you can make a claim, and nothing has been done about that. The only difference in now all providers will now have to offer this type of coverage.

The pre-existing condition combined with the removal of all coverage caps, is going to make all premiums pretty much un-affordable. IMHO

I’m thinking just a relatively small number of people getting unlimited health care, will break most insurance companies, even with the revenues of those healthy people, without current coverage.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And let me ask you, what's the viable alternative to mandating coverage regardless of condition?

I think it's pretty clear you have to look somewhere outside of insurance.

My solution would be affordable health care, but hey…I’m just an idiot.

I say if the government really took a hard look at making the health care industry more open and competitive it would be very positive for all Americans. Just right off-hand I would say being frugal with regulations would be a start... I believe our government is moving in the opposite direction right now, wanting to regulating things right down to Vitamin C--forcing you to get a prescription. I believe if you look at it, using insurance as a basis for health care is to blame for such ridiculous restrictions coming down the pike.

[Top Gun]

And let me ask you, what's the viable alternative to mandating coverage regardless of condition?

I think it's pretty clear you have to look somewhere outside of insurance.

Do tell.

[Zuruck]

I think he's saying don't get sick Gun.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I... did tell.

I made the case for insurance-based charity being a contradiction, and a bad idea, and then I agreed with Spidey--affordable health-care would get rid of the problem entirely, and I believe it is entirely within our government's power to do so in harmony with the constitution and individual liberty.

[Tunnelcat]

That's why the mandate was put into the bill in the first place, to spread costs to everyone. That's the only reason that Obamacare can work at all. It depends on EVERYONE paying into the system to function. Take that out and the whole system may fall apart.

The proof that this will not work is mandatory car insurance.

Well, no one HAS to drive a car to survive either. No car, no insurance payments, no problem.There are other ways of getting around. But I'm assuming that everyone wants to at least LIVE or stay healthy.

I say if the government really took a hard look at making the health care industry more open and competitive it would be very positive for all Americans. Just right off-hand I would say being frugal with regulations would be a start... I believe our government is moving in the opposite direction right now, wanting to regulating things right down to Vitamin C--forcing you to get a prescription. I believe if you look at it, using insurance as a basis for health care is to blame for such ridiculous restrictions coming down the pike.

I'm referring to administrative costs. The government doesn't need to take that massive chunk of profit right off the top in the first place. The mantra that competition will being down costs is a myth. With inelastic demand, companies will collude and charge whatever the market will tolerate, because most people will do anything or pay anything, just to stay healthy, or alive.

As for regulating drugs, I don't think the government is doing enough. Remember that next time you take some drug or supplement and happen to get sick or hurt or DEAD because it was tainted from sloppy and greedy production practices in some third world country. The free market would not solve the problem either, because all some drug company would have to do is form a shell corporation to do business, then conveniently shut things down when shoddy production practices eventually kills people.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... key=123574

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/14/news/ec ... /index.htm

What I'm suspecting is a more realistic problem with Medicare is the rampant fraud, and that most of their recipients are elderly and already having health issues. I dare you to find a private insurance company that will even insure the typical elderly person that has age related health issues for even a remotely affordable premium. Instead of getting rid of Medicare, get rid of the fraud!

[Will Robinson]

..
I'm referring to administrative costs. The government doesn't need to take that massive chunk of profit right off the top in the first place.

If the government wastes 75% of every dollar it takes in for foodstamps or unemployment insurance etc. then they are doing worse than most private companies whether you want to call it administrative costs or Nancy Pelosis private jet fund...

As for regulating drugs, I don't think the government is doing enough. Remember that next time you take some drug or supplement and happen to get sick or hurt or DEAD because it was tainted from sloppy and greedy production practices in some third world country. The free market would not solve the problem either, because all some drug company would have to do is form a shell corporation to do business, then conveniently shut things down when shoddy production practices eventually kills people.

The same drugs that Merck or Pfizer makes for sale here sell for much much less in Canada. I'm suggesting the FDA get out of the protecting-big-pharmaceutical-profits game and let the world market establish a brokerage of sorts, a clearing house for the pharmaceutical product pricing. There can be protections without the lobbiests from big druug makers keeping the competition out of the US by way of contributing to the campaign funds of RNC and DNC members. I can't believe I'm having to tell the biggest liberal on the DBB this! I think you see me say something and immediately think it must be wrong because I'm not one of your team mates...
Instead of reflexively searching for rebuttal fodder try thinking about the content of the post first.

If the U.S. represents 25% of the market but pays 95% of the extra cost to cover "research (or extra profit)" because other countries demand the cost be lower or the product can't be sold there then we should stop paying the extra and demand the true cost be spread out across the whole marketplace. You do that by making the marketplace world wide. I'm sure Canada and France etc. have some standards we can adopt to keep the people as safe as their citizens are without giving the drug lobby the FDA option to buy the rights to extort extra profit from U.S. citizens!

[Tunnelcat]

..
I'm referring to administrative costs. The government doesn't need to take that massive chunk of profit right off the top in the first place.

If the government wastes 75% of every dollar it takes in for foodstamps or unemployment insurance etc. then they are doing worse than most private companies whether you want to call it administrative costs or Nancy Pelosis private jet fund...

I don't disagree with you that government is part of the problem. I'm from the camp of FIX THE DAMN GOVERNMENT so that it works for the damn people, so that it's no longer an arm of big business. Big business and government need to get a permanent divorce frankly. But I'm getting tired of the Republican and tea party mantras of "get rid of broken government" and "let the free market decide". A government run program that's run properly should have a low overhead by virtue that it's not making an effing PROFIT.

As for regulating drugs, I don't think the government is doing enough. Remember that next time you take some drug or supplement and happen to get sick or hurt or DEAD because it was tainted from sloppy and greedy production practices in some third world country. The free market would not solve the problem either, because all some drug company would have to do is form a shell corporation to do business, then conveniently shut things down when shoddy production practices eventually kills people.

The same drugs that Merck or Pfizer makes for sale here sell for much much less in Canada. I'm suggesting the FDA get out of the protecting-big-pharmaceutical-profits game and let the world market establish a brokerage of sorts, a clearing house for the pharmaceutical product pricing. There can be protections without the lobbiests from big druug makers keeping the competition out of the US by way of contributing to the campaign funds of RNC and DNC members. I can't believe I'm having to tell the biggest liberal on the DBB this! I think you see me say something and immediately think it must be wrong because I'm not one of your team mates...
Instead of reflexively searching for rebuttal fodder try thinking about the content of the post first.

If the U.S. represents 25% of the market but pays 95% of the extra cost to cover "research (or extra profit)" because other countries demand the cost be lower or the product can't be sold there then we should stop paying the extra and demand the true cost be spread out across the whole marketplace. You do that by making the marketplace world wide. I'm sure Canada and France etc. have some standards we can adopt to keep the people as safe as their citizens are without giving the drug lobby the FDA option to buy the rights to extort extra profit from U.S. citizens!

So why do drugs cost more here, hmmmmmmm? Could it be all that ADVERTISING? Which pretty much soaks up most of the TV ad time at night and is downright nauseating. That "extra cost" of doing research is mostly a myth. Taxpayer funded research is where most of our new drugs come from, so we are doubly getting taken for a ride by big pharma, and as you say, a government that is wedded to corporate lobbying. Oh, and don't forget about Bush's wonderful little Republican program, Medicare Part D, where Congress made sure that the government didn't have the power to negotiate for lower drug prices.

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7065

Everything these guys do is driven by unabashed greed for more profit. If other countries tell these companies to cut prices to a more 'realistic' level, maybe that's we need to start doing here as well.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... discovery/

[Sergeant Thorne]

If other countries tell these companies to cut prices to a more 'realistic' level, maybe that's we need to start doing here as well.

I disagree with that. I think there can be a solution that involves changing the playing field, rather than micro-managing the players.

[flip]

Nope wasn't me who said that

[Sergeant Thorne]

I should have known it was an Obama fan who said that! My most sincere apologies. It was the similarly black and white logos that confused me.

[CUDA]

If other countries tell these companies to cut prices to a more 'realistic' level, maybe that's we need to start doing here as well.

MY how Walmart of you

[Tunnelcat]

I should have known it was an Obama fan who said that! My most sincere apologies. It was the similarly black and white logos that confused me.

I take that as an insult! I'm no fan of Obama, er, President Dunsel.

Since you noticed ST, who can decipher my black and white logo?

MY how Walmart of you

Perhaps I should have said raise prices to even things out globally. How humanitarian.

[Foil]

Since you noticed ST, who can decipher my black and white logo?

I did, the day you changed it. If you didn't want it easily read, shouldn't have used a standardized code.

[Tunnelcat]

I wasn't trying to make it difficult, or dirty. I just wondered if anyone would be curious and go figure out what it said without any prompting. I've been seeing these codes on everything lately and thought they were kind of fun to play with.