Obamacare Going Down?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Congress needs to pass a 2/3 majority with the 50 State legislatures and amend the constitution if it wants to run health care in the manner described. I'm not against this, but the proper channels need to be followed. The current law is an unconstitutional Federal power grab and an abuse of the commerce clause regarding a matter that must be resolved by the people or the States respectively. I would support a vote to amend the constitution, but the constant assault on the separation of powers by many administrations needs to end. It degrades the legal legitimacy of the nation and supporters of the law need to check themselves.

Remember when Congress amended the Constitution to allow a Federal income tax? That is a simple line that was put into the document enumerating a new power. We need to do it again and get back on track for a sustainable separation of powers. You must recognize that there is no limit to Federal abuses that use the commerce clause. The definition being used allows the Federal government to regulate and decide everything under the sun.

[rvg]

I can definitely get behind this line of thought. A constitutional amendment would get around all the liberty issues while also solving the problem in the most direct and powerful way imaginable.

Except that it ain't happening. Newt's moonbase has a more realistic chance of happening than a healthcare amendment.

[Goofball]

I don't understand why Obama didn't just take all of the insurance companies out of the picture and institute socialized medicine. That way it's a tax. Everyone pays into it. Nobody is forced to purchase anything. Everyone has health care whenever they need it. It lifts the incredibly crushing handicap U.S. businesses face when competing against companies from every other modern nation, and cuts out all of the money that has to go to insurance company and HMO profit. And the price is reasonable. In my province monthly rates are $64.00 for one person, $116.00 for a family of two and $128.00 for a family of three or more. If you are employed, many employers will pay 50% of your monthly premium for you. And those premiums only apply to people earning > $30,000/year. For those making less than that, premium assistance is provided on an upward sliding scale as income declines, to the income level of $22,000/year, at which point your premiums are 100% subsidized. Quite civilized really. Not a threat to liberty at all.

[rvg]

I don't understand why Obama didn't just take all of the insurance companies out of the picture and institute socialized medicine. That way it's a tax. Everyone pays into it. Nobody is forced to purchase anything. Everyone has health care whenever they need it. It lifts the incredibly crushing handicap U.S. businesses face when competing against companies from every other modern nation, and cuts out all of the money that has to go to insurance company and HMO profit. And the price is reasonable. In my province monthly rates are $64.00 for one person, $116.00 for a family of two and $128.00 for a family of three or more. If you are employed, many employers will pay 50% of your monthly premium for you. And those premiums only apply to people earning > $30,000/year. For those making less than that, premium assistance is provided on an upward sliding scale as income declines, to the income level of $22,000/year, at which point your premiums are 100% subsidized. Quite civilized really. Not a threat to liberty at all.

Because it would be a hugely unpopular measure.

[Goofball]

It wouldn't have been any more unpopular than what he did (at least initially, the numbers I've been seeing lately put public opinion at around 50-50 on Obamacare), and there would not have been any of this SCOTUS kafuffle you're going through right now, as the federal government is within its rights to levy taxes.

[rvg]

It wouldn't have been any more unpopular than what he did (at least initially, the numbers I've been seeing lately put public opinion at around 50-50 on Obamacare), and there would not have been any of this SCOTUS kafuffle you're going through right now, as the federal government is within its rights to levy taxes.

imho a president that introduces a healthcare tax in his first term is guaranteed to be a one term president.

[Goofball]

I don't disagree. But it looks like that's what is going to happen anyway. At least if he'd done it the other way it wouldn't have been thrown out by the SC and he might have left a lasting legacy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because it would be a hugely unpopular measure.

I'm of a mind with ta' Dawg. Obamacare was an attempt to do the right thing but a half arsed one.

As to your comment, socialised medicin is ALWAYS unpopular among the chattering classes on the right, but it's blummen well popular among the poor and after a generation no one would dare get rid of it.

I don't know though, maybe America missed the moment to do this after the war. Every other country instituted socialised medicine, America opted for just socialising the care of it's soldiers and veterans instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in favor of total free market health care. No government whatsoever. The only way to teach America is to let the libertarian utopia bring about total havok and death so we can finally eradicate these silly notions from our marketplace of ideas.

[Lemur]

Interesting discussion here about why low-end innovation doesn't happen under our system.

Frum asks, "Where is the Sam Walton of American healthcare?"

We don't have the finest food or handicrafts. You go to Europe for things like that, Frum notes. "The genius of American business," he continues, "is the ability to produce a good-enough product at a fabulous price and make it available to everybody—to unleash a remorseless seeking after efficiency."

But in the healthcare arena, he says, America is like French cuisine: We have the best of the best care—and at gob-smackingly high prices.

Kaus—no fan of Obamacare or President Obama himself—replies that if it were possible for the Sam Walton (or Murray Lender) of healthcare to ever emerge, he would have done so already. That's because the healthcare market is ... unique:

"If you provide better services, you get penalized for it. If you give more and better care to people, sick people will flock to your company, and a vicious cycle will take place where they will drive up your costs and you will lose money.

"It's one of the few businesses—schools are another one—where your profits depend on the class of customers you get as opposed to the service you provide. That is a perversity that the market has not overcome."

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why attack Libertarian ideals?

Because they are presented as a cure to problems in the same way Coca Cola was originally presented as a cure for dyspepsia.

It makes no more sense than attacking communist ideals on the other side of the argument.

There are no communist ideals in America. Single payer is not communist.

We have a system that costs 3 times as much to maintain for the same results. Whether you're cutting the free market out or cutting the government out you're helping to save the healthcare system from loopholes, pork, bad legislation, bad financial management, and congressional stonewalling to prevent progress. Attack corruption and porky loop-hole-filled (and thus extroardinarily expensive) legislation, not some stupid notion of a libertarian conspiracy.

No, pushing for free market reforms in a market that many in these thread have already shown be to "unique" or "special" is simply asking for the incentives of the current scenario to be taken to the extreme. Health care only for the impeccably healthy, no health care for the poor and sick. The exact opposite of what any sane person would be looking for in a system.

[Papewaio]

"It's one of the few businesses—schools are another one—where your profits depend on the class of customers you get as opposed to the service you provide. That is a perversity that the market has not overcome."

On the surface this looks correct. It also points to why the basic no frills version should be state provided.

However no company has ever gone broke because its market share increased as long as they had no loss leads.

If an insurance company properly calibrates its risk:reward it can both make a profit and serve more customers.

Problem is that you cannot just outsource all if the building blocks of a health system overseas. You also cannot take a selective approach to modern medicine as a product in isolation. All the factors of ones lifestyle add into ones health profile. What you eat, how much you exercise, type of work, hours of sleep.

Most health systems are setup to deal with the end results of a lifetime of good and bad choices. Preventative health care and individual responsibility are tacked on too late into the equation.

Need to take a more holistic approach on individual lives. So how does a health care provider do that?

Buy there own fitness centers and give discounts too health care based on results?

The thing is your lifestyle is your choice. To make it health insurance viable for a lot of profit motivated companies will require your lifestyle to be their choice.

[gaelic cowboy]

There are no communist ideals in America.

Abrakedbra alakazam ta da bah dum bish

[rory_20_uk]

Need to take a more holistic approach on individual lives. So how does a health care provider do that?

Buy there own fitness centers and give discounts too health care based on results?

The thing is your lifestyle is your choice. To make it health insurance viable for a lot of profit motivated companies will require your lifestyle to be their choice.

A healthcare provider, be it private or state can have discounts to existing gyms. Not rocket science.
They can also tailor premiums to lifestyle. Here in the UK some providers give subsidised gym membership and also reduced premiums the more times you use it. One could also measure things such as carbon monoxide levels in the blood for smoking.

Making people healthier can make money. I posted a link to a document that describes exactly this in the case of diabetes.

[Goofball]

Interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

Most of it seems plausible to me. Can anyone poke any holes in it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've just had a lively discussion with my mom about this very topic. I was arguing a number of different angles to the same problem.

Namely,

The current pre-PPACA system is non-competitive and non-capitalistic and should not be defended as such. The argument can be made that it shouldn't be held to that standard; sales under duress are mostly banned in other competitive industries, prices are posted in other competitive industries, Choice does not truly exist for non-elective health care and lay people cannot be required to understand the intricacies or make well reasoned decisions in emergency situations.
The current system is unsustainable and will eat every penny of growth that we will see for the foreseeable future.
The new Affordable Health Care Law could help lower cost in the short term due to its mandate that those outside of the adverse selecting pool must carry some level of insurance.

But the law is unconstitutional by my adolescent but eager understanding of the Constitution; the power should be enumerated through an amendment as other expansive federal power grabs have been required to be (ie income tax, abolition of slavery, etc)
But the current law is an abuse of the commerce clause and usurps the protected constitutional authority of the States, or the people.
But the States have mostly failed to protect the interests of the people in this regard
But it could be constitutional if we enumerated it to be so.

The federal government could pass laws requiring some action be taken by States which meet some minimum standard of citizen protection.
The appropriate governmental entity could separate elective health care requirements from non-elective health care requirements (similarly to how assigned risk auto is broken down in my state - mandatory BI, non-mandatory collision)

Etc, Etc. I've been told that one sign of intelligence is the ability to push for various opposing arguments simultaneously, so I try to do that as objectively as possible. People tend to fundamentally mis-understand the new law and think it is a single payer system. These people need to be educated to hate it for what it is, not what it isn't and find wisdom where it exists in the law.

[Xiahou]

Today Obama cautioned conservatives against getting too excited over Obamacare's overturn:

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint,"

Obama seems to be a little confused about the term "judicial activism". Judicial activism is when judges base decisions on their own biases or views. Making a decision based on the Constitution or stare decisis wouldn't be activism. You can think a judge made the wrong decision- but just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's activism.

Further, it's very unbecoming of the office to the president to try to call out the SCOTUS on the eve of a decision because he's worried it might not go his way. It almost smacks of intimidation. I guess at least he's not threatening to pack the court.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

In a conspiratorial world, some would say that private insurance companies only came to consensus over inclusion of the mandate promise and that a distinguished constitutional law professor may have known that it would be considered unconstitutional. He would have had all of the concessions, none of the compromise. This could garner a social demand for single payer when health insurance companies are legally required to provide the service for an unconscionable price.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In a conspiratorial world, some would say that private insurance companies only came to consensus over inclusion of the mandate promise and that a distinguished constitutional law professor may have known that it would be considered unconstitutional. He would have had all of the concessions, none of the compromise. This could garner a social demand for single payer when health insurance companies are legally required to provide the service for an unconscionable price.

Exactly, Obama played this perfectly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Abrakedbra alakazam ta da bah dum bish

Private companies engaging in mutually agreed upon contracts? Sure....

[gaelic cowboy]

Private companies engaging in mutually agreed upon contracts? Sure....

Is the specific ordering of the picking not even a tiny bit commie.

[drone]

Further, it's very unbecoming of the office to the president to try to call out the SCOTUS on the eve of a decision because he's worried it might not go his way. It almost smacks of intimidation. I guess at least he's not threatening to pack the court.....

Obama started this fight with his 2010 State of the Union address. The Supremes aren't going to do him any favors.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is the specific ordering of the picking not even a tiny bit commie.

I don't think so. Purpose of the system is to make sure that the playing field is more even for all teams which prevents a select few from dominating all the time (AKA the Yankees syndrome) which gets an overall greater population in the US interested in the sport. In other words: Profit!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If the nfl was communist they would just award the super bowl trophy to each team in turn (in theory, in actuality the washington redskins would "win" every year)

[drone]

The NFL is sort of like Norway economically. Heavy on the socialism, but even the crappy teams print money because of the natural resources that are TV contracts. The draft and salary caps are meant to induce parity on the playing field only, and bad management can drop the ball with these. But it would take some serious incompetence to financially hurt an NFL franchise.

[Xiahou]

Hardly unbecoming. Every president who's had to tangle with the Supreme Court has done so under nasty circumstances, from Lincoln to FDR to Bush to Obama.

No, I don't really think so. Feel free to prove me wrong with some examples, but the last president that comes to mind who was this confrontational with the SCOTUS was FDR- FDR was truly beyond the pale.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, I don't really think so. Feel free to prove me wrong with some examples, but the last president that comes to mind who was this confrontational with the SCOTUS was FDR- FDR was truly beyond the pale.

You are right Xiahou. Presidents after FDR learned to stop fighting the SCOTUS and just try to rig it. Eisenhower if I remember correctly regretted his appointment of Warren but never said anything publicly about that.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

I'm not a fan of the bill. The fact that it is required is disturbing to me. If it's required that means US citizens will be forced to live a certain life style. Which is bad because people who could otherwise get by have to pay for something they may not want or plan on using. People have a right to use traditional medicines and lifestyles.

e.g. Nomads? It basically outlaws a nomadic lifestyle. Which might not sound like a big deal, but I think it is. As an environmentalist I am concerned with reducing my carbon footprint, and I can do that. Cheaply, but if you add expenses to my simplistic life style, it starts to become difficult to afford. I simply do not make enough money as an artist to pay for anything besides my basic human needs. I live in Michigan too, so we're expected to pay insurance on cars as a law. I don't own a car. If I did I couldn't afford it, nor could I afford gas.

I simply want my right to live as I choose. It's not hurting anyone else or our nation. In fact, I think it's helping the nation, but if the bill passes, I might not be able to live how I choose to live.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Since FDR the SCOTUS has become partisan and almost croney-ish. I understand that's a subjective thing to say, but it seems founded when you can look at SCOTUS and know beforehand that they'll split among partisan lines instead of being a separate body of wisdom. It undermines the checks and balances, IMO. I'd prefer open political brawls to having a bunch of justices that are only too eager to please the party that appointed them. Then again, maybe they were appointed because the politicians knew beforehand that they were predictable (Roberts).

You might find this interesting:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/ev...ourt-is-wrong/

Start with the Court's ideological divide. Although some cases are decided five to four, that’s less than twenty percent of the cases this Term. Roughly half the decisions are nine to zero. Only slightly more than one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal-conservative divide (fewer, if we don't include cases in which we presume Justice Sotomayor would have voted with the left had she not been recused).

Though the Term ended (as it often does) with decisions decided along ideological lines, other five-to-four decisions that intuitively might have been decided on an ideological basis during the course of the Term were instead resolved by totally unpredictable alignments. For example, the Court in Dolan v. United States broadly read judges' power to order restitution (a "conservative" outcome) by a majority of Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, over the dissent of Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy. (This was the exceptionally rare case of the five most junior Justices joining together against all their senior colleagues.) Then Magwood v. Patterson broadly permitted a habeas corpus petitioner who prevails in a habeas petition to bring a new challenge to his subsequent sentence (a "liberal" result) in an opinion by Thomas (!) joined by Scalia, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor, over the dissent of Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Alito. Thomas also wrote the defendant-favoring opinion construing the Speedy Trial Act in Bloate v. United States, over the dissent of Justices Alito and Breyer. In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., the Court held that state law cannot block federal class actions (a pro-plaintiff result) in an opinion by Justice Scalia (!) joined by Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and Sotomayor, over the dissent of Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito.

And anyway, if there is a "conservative vs liberal" split involving how to interpret the constitution (orginalism etc), the problem is not "partisanship" but one side being wrong about how to interpret the constitution.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And anyway, if there is a "conservative vs liberal" split involving how to interpret the constitution (orginalism etc), the problem is not "partisanship" but one side being wrong about how to interpret the constitution.

How is any side wrong in how to interpret the Constitution? It's a pretty fluid and vague document.