Judge rules Obama healthcare law unconstitutional

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

[jsteele]

Only the individual mandate. The rest of it passed muster. Moreover, this is only one judge in one lawsuit (Republican-appointed, to boot). Several judges have ruled the opposite in other lawsuits. So, I wouldn't get too excited about this ruling. The Supreme Court will eventually decide the case.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Only the individual mandate. The rest of it passed muster. Moreover, this is only one judge in one lawsuit (Republican-appointed, to boot). Several judges have ruled the opposite in other lawsuits. So, I wouldn't get too excited about this ruling. The Supreme Court will eventually decide the case.

Yes, but Jeff isn't it unconstitutional to FORCE people to purchase something? The whole premise of this healthcare law lies in the individual mandate, once you can start to opt out, it starts to crack and fray.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, but Jeff isn't it unconstitutional to FORCE people to purchase something? The whole premise of this healthcare law lies in the individual mandate, once you can start to opt out, it starts to crack and fray.

More judges have ruled that it is constitutional than have ruled that it isn't. As I said, the Supreme Court will decide this.

The healthcare law has a lot of parts that don't hinge on the individual mandate. For instance, the health insurance exchanges can exist regardless of the mandate.

Regardless, I have always felt that the biggest shortcoming of the law was the individual mandate. Not because I didn't think there should be a mandate, but because I don't think there should be a mandate without a public option. Obviously, many people would consider a mandate a mandate and oppose it regardless of whether there were a public option. But, I think forcing people to become customers of the likes of Aetna and UHC is much worse than forcing them to be participants in a government program (obviously, some people would feel just the opposite).

Either way, I think just about everyone agrees that a system in which people don't contribute to healthcare coverage, but then show up at the emergency room and get free healthcare is not fair. That's the system we have today. Those of us with insurance pay for the coverage of those who don't. Personally, I'd implement single payer and call it a day. But, Obama didn't even allow that option to be considered, preferring a convoluted mechanism that did nothing but pad the insurance company's bottom lines. So, he gets to deal with lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Rather than charge a fine, why not just give a "tax break" to people who do have insurance? Raise everyone's taxes by .5% (or whatever the fee would have been) and then give those with insurance a tax break for the same amount. Isn't that what Republicans have been doing for years to avoid being identified as giving out the "hand outs" they love to decry?

[Anonymous]

So republicans would have preferred a government-run socialized health care system? That way no one has to buy anything.

Or . . . republicans prefer that people opt out and just get covered with tax dollars when they go to the ER for emergency medical treatment?

What in the hell do you want?

[Anonymous]

Rather than charge a fine, why not just give a "tax break" to people who do have insurance? Raise everyone's taxes by .5% (or whatever the fee would have been) and then give those with insurance a tax break for the same amount. Isn't that what Republicans have been doing for years to avoid being identified as giving out the "hand outs" they love to decry?

Well, you could do this. But then the democrats couldn't say they didn't raise taxes, and that is more important than passing effective legislation that can actually address the needs of the nation. Both parties have this philosophy.

[Anonymous]

A person that has been paying taxes must die on the gutter because doctors will turn away patients with no insurance. Or patients with insurance, when the insurance companies have found ways to deny care

[Anonymous]

Conservative judges (Thomas aside) seem to have no problem using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as broadly as possible when it suits them (example pot). Unsurpisingly they will likely take a more strict interpretation when this comes up.

I say that if we can't have a mandate - which we absolutely should, then dump the whole thing on the states. They can pay for the uninsured if they feel like it, and they can require a mandate if they want to lower that cost. Uninsured people who get sick while out of state will just have to suck it up and get back to where they came from. We can give them greyhound vouchers.

If the uninsured had the integrity to either pay cashg or stay out of hospitals when they get sick, I would be fine with dropping the mandate. But that's not going to happen. So we should make them pay their share.

[Anonymous]

If the uninsured had the integrity to either pay cashg or stay out of hospitals when they get sick, I would be fine with dropping the mandate. But that's not going to happen. So we should make them pay their share.
[Report Post]

But this is impossible to enforce. In emergency situations, medical personnel would have to verify proof of insurance or ability to pay before providing care to people having heart attacks or in car accidents, etc. It isn't possible - and I don't think ANYONE wants those kinds of delays.

My parents are uninsured. My mom had breast cancer 15 years ago and got dumped by her insurance (after they jacked her premium up to $3500 a month), and then was uninsurable because of the preexisting condition. They got into a car accident (not their fault) about 5 years ago and needed multiple emergency surgeries and were in the ICU for weeks. I wouldn't say they lacked "integrity" because they couldn't pay cash . . . ultimately, the at-fault driver's car insurance paid about 40% of the bill (I think his maximum auto insurance payout was $100K). They got most of the rest relieved (one of those instances where the hospital charges a billion dollars but agrees to much less after negotiations), and sued the driver for the remaining bit. So ultimately the hospital was paid, but there is just no way this could have been sorted in advance. It took years for this to all be settled.

I think they should have just called it a tax and dealt with the Republican accusations of them raising taxes.

[Anonymous]

In order to tax or charge a fee, the bill needs to originate in the house of representatives. This bill originated in the Senate so if it is deemed a tax, it will be ruled Unconstitutional. Obamacare will be overturned in the Supreme Court. It was a dumb move by Obama to dress down the justices in his state of the Union speach.

[Anonymous]

Obamacare will be overturned in the Supreme Court.

They don't repeal an entire bill because a portion of it isn't constitutional. You may want that to happen, but it doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous]

the funding of Obamacare will be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

So the problem is this: Without the mandate, the uninsured get care for free.

The problem is that the mandate was going to reduce the cost of unreimbursed care. That cost savings was effectively what paid for all of the goodies we got in the health care bill like the inability to jack up rates for preexisting conditions, or preventive care.

So how does this get paid for? Since there are no offsetting cost savings, the insurance companies will jack up our rates to cover the new benefits.

I hope everyone is happy. Conservatives fighting the mandate have now just turned the health care law into a straight giveaway program with no cost savings. Good job. Clap. Clap. Clap.

[Anonymous]

send the uninsured to hospitals without any staff or doctors. Only the ones whoo work for free.