It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare Day 3: Court May Strike Down Entire Law, Not Just Mandate

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It's important to note that when they say it's "key to finance" what that actually means is this:

It will cut insurance corporations profit so that they would be unable to financially withstand all the new provisions.

Doesn't even have anything to do with the whole medicaid fiasco that will bankrupt states.

How does that make Democrats feel? That the entire bill now revolves around whether or not private insurance corporations will make enough money?

Fools.




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
As I mentioned in another thread, the real important issue here is what the SCOTUS said in regards to the constitutionality of single-payer healthcare. This opens the door to pass legislation down the road that allows people to participate in a government-backed program without a mandate.

So even though Obamacare may be overturned, this may have opened doors that the Republicans did not intent to open...and coming from conservative judges.

Don't worry too much yet... Nothing SCOTUS has said this week means anything, whatsoever. It's a nice hint at how they're thinking and what direction they may go...likely WILL go in this case...but for wording or anything so technical? It's not an issue until the ruling comes out and THOSE words are what the nation will live by as the law of the land.

By the sound of it...and by my own words, it's only a guide for their thinking, but the glimpse this week leaves me thinking Obamacare may not survive AT ALL....heck with only parts. They may toss the ENTIRE thing as a whole. That sets no precedent for anything related to it, if it's all killed.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
The whole thing is a mess.

However, I can see Obama benefiting either way.

If it is upheld...then Obama wins and the Republican candidates lose a big rally cry about repealing the "unconstitutional" law.

If it is struck down...then Obama campaigns on that Republicans were the ones that wanted the mandate in the first place, fought against the public option (which the SCOTUS has hinted at being constitutional), and supported the mandate...then immediately fought against it. He also campaigns on the Republicans being at fault for millions of Americans losing insurance overnight after the ruling. And also...the Republicans still lose one of their biggest rally cries about repealing the bill.

Either way...the Republicans have lost their biggest rally cry.




I just feel sorry for any 21-26 year old that is currently sick, or anyone who had a pre-existing condition and got insurance under the health care bill. If the SCOTUS strikes down the law, they are immediately without insurance and they now have a pre-existing condition and are screwed for life.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





As I mentioned in another thread, the real important issue here is what the SCOTUS said in regards to the constitutionality of single-payer healthcare. This opens the door to pass legislation down the road that allows people to participate in a government-backed program without a mandate.


Bingo. Strike down the mandate...the only way to get everyone paying into the system is with a single payer system....medicare part E (for everyone).



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





The whole thing is a mess. However, I can see Obama benefiting either way. If it is upheld...then Obama wins and the Republican candidates lose a big rally cry about repealing the "unconstitutional" law. If it is struck down...then Obama campaigns on that Republicans were the ones that wanted the mandate in the first place, fought against the public option (which the SCOTUS has hinted at being constitutional), and supported the mandate...then immediately fought against it. He also campaigns on the Republicans being at fault for millions of Americans losing insurance overnight after the ruling. And also...the Republicans still lose one of their biggest rally cries about repealing the bill. Either way...the Republicans have lost their biggest rally cry.


I agree. If they strike down the mandate...the whole bill has to go down. Millions will lose insurance coverage instantly....and many will not be able to get it because of pre-existing conditions.

Republicans should be careful for what they wish for. We already have socialized healthcare...Medicare and Medicaid....but only certain segments of the population can use it. We are on the path of a full blown single payer system if the mandate is struck down.

The mandate was to retain profitability for the insurance companies...who lobbied incredibly hard for the mandates.

Obama, even through all of what is going on right now, still has a 50 percent approval rating. If the mandate goes down, his approval rating will go up further.


edit on 29-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


This is important. The SCOTUS made it quite clear to me anyway that a single-payer, universal-coverage plan may be within the confines of the constitution as long as there is no mandate.

I like the idea since it would allow people to get away from the burdensome insurance companies and allow the American people to negotiate through the power of their government for better prices on healthcare.

This would not only cover many more people, but would drive down medical debt.

So a decision in favor or the Republicans now may pave the way for a system they never intended.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





This is important. The SCOTUS made it quite clear to me anyway that a single-payer, universal-coverage plan may be within the confines of the constitution as long as there is no mandate. I like the idea since it would allow people to get away from the burdensome insurance companies and allow the American people to negotiate through the power of their government for better prices on healthcare. This would not only cover many more people, but would drive down medical debt. So a decision in favor or the Republicans now may pave the way for a system they never intended.


I agree with you 100 percent. Also, this takes business completely out of equation. No more worries about moral/religious beliefs....that would be eliminated. Basically, in what i believe, medicare will just be extended to everyone....we would pay more into it each month...but insurance as we know it now will be gone. Most countries that have single payer systems still allow secondary insurance as a sort of back up.

Republicans/conservatives have been making the case for a single payer system all by themselves.


What is the other option, if there is no mandate, to a single payer system?

LET PEOPLE DIE. Turn them away at the ER because they are poor or have fallen on hard times....and IMO...that is simply not an option...EVER.

We are an accident or a firing away from losing everything...including our insurance. It could be any one of us in that position.

If socialized health care is so horrible...why does the elderly love it? They certainly seem to love being able to get their pills for pain and all other kinds of problems...and being able to get treatment when they need it. I don't hear them taking about death panels. My father loves medicare....and i thank god that it exists.
edit on 29-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



What is the other option, if there is no mandate, to a single payer system?

Personally, I believe the last hundred or so years of Health Care without a single payer system have worked very well indeed. Up until the last 10-15 years, anyway. somewhere along that period, it seems to have gone from simply Medicine for profit to keep everything logical as a business to profit to such obscene extremes, even a doctor is probably left praying he never gets sick.

Prior to this rather recent spiral from tolerable and necessary to vile and outright evil in profit motive behind medical care, that system of ours kept our nation at the very cutting edge of Medicine and Medical technology. We still ARE #1 in most of that, but at this rate, we won't be for long now. Somehow, I don't relish the day I'm sitting here waiting for the next big breakthrough to emerge from the very best a 3rd world nation can develop.

We sure won't be able to sustain explosive development like the U.S. has by using Socliast single payer models that simply don't have anything for development. That takes money...money from profit..and profit doesn't exist in that sense under the system so many would have us turn to.

Oh..and if it's such a grand system..this single payer garbage...why is it we see Europe and others really looking hard at scrapping their own? Oh..but we can do it better... of course.. We're Americans. We'll succeed where so far, all others have failed to different degrees.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I am an Obama supporter, but I hope Obamacare goes down in flames. This ridiculous law is a prime example of why Obama fails to deliver for the Left.

If you want to raise my taxes to pay for healthcare, fine. That's great actually. But do it right. Give us single-payer, and make it a crime to sell health insurance for a profit. Don't force me to purchase a worthless, expensive insurance "product" from a corrupt corporation whose sole purpose is to suck me dry and deny me coverage when I need it.

Obamacare is a muddled, overcomplicated mess and it has "compromise" written all over it. If it goes down, maybe they'll try harder to actually fix the system.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
There will never be a single payer system for all without first passing tax reform which fairly and commensurately ties annual income into a balanced taxing structure. We have to first put an end to big business and the 1% using loopholes to escape fair taxation responsibilities.

Without doing so, exactly where does everyone think the money for a single payer system will come from? Do you really think that the average American, barely able to scrape by on their salaries (if they're fortunate enough to have a job) is going to be happy over increased taxes? Do you think that our government, currently living on debt, will somehow find the trillions of dollars needed for a single payer system? The reason Medicare worked and is so loved by its recipients is because it was cumulatively funded by the sweat of generation(s) who a) understood its importance and b) had a different work ethic than the most recent generations. These were folks who saw their parents struggle through the great depression; baby boomers who understood the importance of future planning and imperative need to contribute toward their future. Simply put, a single payer system for all will never work unless taxes are commensurately calculated across all socio-economic segments of society and something is done to stop the never ending increase of medical and pharmaceutical costs.

As someone fluently familiar with the history of healthcare reform, let me provide some intel on the severability clause:

The first bill drafted was in June of 2009 entitled H.R. 3200 or America's Affordable Health Choices Act. This bill included the individual mandate and DID contain a severability clause. A summary can be found here and if you scroll down to section 155 on page 3, you'll see the verbiage. The major sticking point of this bill was that it included a public option in addition to private options, a provision which was later removed.

The bill then moved to the House of Representatives who issued HR 3962 or The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, which can be found here. It too contained a severability clause in Section 255 which can be found on page 145.

The bill then moved to the Senate, who modified it via HR 4872 or The Health Care Education and reconciliation Act which can be found here, which made no changes to the severability clause proposed in the house bill.

The final bill, HR 3590 or The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act, which can be found here, DOES NOT contain an explicit severability clause which leads to the doubts and suspicion many are having.

With all of this said, it's my belief (with great sorrow) that it's too late to hope for a total repeal of the law; however, I do believe that there are several sections which will be either modified or stricken depending on who is in power at the time of implementation. The law was designed to be implemented over an 8 year time frame. The provision most protested by big business is the "Cadillac tax" which won't kick in until 2018, way beyond any possible Obama term limit. How convenient is that?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
How do people not see that its Insurance Companies who want to see Obamacare fail.

The greed is disgusting.

Between healthcare, war, the environment, religious pandering, and the constant support of corporate greed, it feels like conservative republicans have absolutely zero judgement skills anymore. its like their brains are just so broken they cant even use them anymore. War is good, Healthcare is bad, Drilling is good, Environment is bad. Feels like insanity.
edit on 30-3-2012 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
How do people not see that its Insurance Companies who want to see Obamacare fail.

The greed is disgusting.

Between healthcare, war, the environment, religious pandering, and the constant support of corporate greed, it feels like conservative republicans have absolutely zero judgement skills anymore. its like their brains are just so broken they cant even use them anymore. War is good, Healthcare is bad, Drilling is good, Environment is bad. Feels like insanity.
edit on 30-3-2012 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


Because most people don't take the time to fully research and understand the issue at hand. This is absolutely disastrous for the insurance companies and they are lobbying 24/7 to have this repealed. There's no number of additional insureds, even if they were all healthy (which they're not) that will make up for the mandatory coverage provisions and even if they can justify exorbitant premium increases, it will never match the gravy train they've been riding for the past 20 years.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
"Can ObamaCare as it is, function without the infamous "Mandate" ?" My first thought was: Sure! Personally, I do NOT want to be forced into anything. My second thought is: No! You cannot uphold something without people paying into a system that doesn't offer cures to health/medical problems.

"Can the Court in fact "sever" that part, or must they strike down the whole law ?" My first thought was: Sure! But The Justices MUST go through each page and make sure each section represents the general "will of the people", not just lobbyists and pals. My second thought is: No! You cannot expect the Justices to read through 2,700 pages and make judgement on each section. They could "strike down the entire Obamacare law".

Either way, the Court may retain this well-crafted monstrosity in its entirety (or not) and be done with it! After all, how is a nation to function with MILLIONS of uninsured people seeking medical treatment? There has to be a better "control" (mechanism) of pricing and costs in this area. Thank you.
edit on 2012-3-30 by pikypiky because: To correct previous thoughts and/or grammar/spelling errors...



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Obamacare Day 3: Court May Strike Down Entire Law, Not Just Mandate

The issue of “severability” is a main issue.

Can ObamaCare as it is, function without the infamous "Mandate" ?

Can the Court in fact "sever" that part, or must they strike down the whole law ?

Many legislated laws have a "severability clause" to deal with such questions.

ObamaCare has no such clause !!
(although some initial drafts may have, and were removed)

This article suggests that the law's interconnected parts will prevent a simple "Mandate only" strike down.

One argument is that the "Mandate" is key to financing the entire program.


March 28, 2012 -- PatDollard.com

Excerpted from Breitbart - If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare’s individual mandate (which is very likely after yesterday), will it also strike down President Obama’s entire 2,700-page law? The justices signaled they might do so during the third day of Supreme Court arguments.

Most of the time when part of a law is invalid, courts “sever” that part from the rest of the law and save the rest. This ruling of “severability” often coincides with the law at issue having a severability clause, where Congress declares that if part of the law if found unconstitutional, a court should save the rest. Courts can sever a law even without such a clause, but it gives the court more latitude because there’s no rock-solid indication that Congress wanted that outcome.

The Supreme Court has three issues when it comes to Obamacare. It can (1) totally sever the individual mandate section, retaining the other 450 sections; (2) partially sever the mandate, striking down some sections but keeping the rest, or (3) can hold the mandate “totally nonseverable” and strike down the entire Obamacare law.



The attorney for the challenger states and private businesses, Paul Clement, explained: “What makes this different is that the provisions that have constitutional difficulties or are tied at the hip to those provisions that have the constitutional difficulty are the very heart of this Act… they are interconnected to the exchanges, which are then connected to the tax credits, which are also connected to the employer mandates, which is also connected to some of the revenue offsets, which is also connected to Medicaid; if you follow that through what you end up with at the end of that process is just sort of a hollow shell.”

So in order to go the route of partial severability, the justices would have to go through Obamacare line by line, guessing which parts Congress would want to keep and which ones it would not.

The Leg Bone's Connected to the Hip Bone, the Hip Bone's Connected to the ...


Many opinions are starting to wonder if specific "Time bombs" or "Poison Pills"
were inserted and/or purposefully omitted to eventually arrive at a different agenda by default.

Interesting concept if true. And possibly even a brilliant strategy !!

Remember -- Lawyers wrote the damn thing in the first place !!





Not to point out the obvious: /clears throat so all the blind fools can hear:


THE WHOLE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE CONGRESS PROHIBITS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE! THUS CONGRESS HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE HEALTH INSURANCE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!

Seriously, is the IQ of above top secret that low that none of you can grasp the meaning of interstate commerce?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
One positive thing that will come out of this is the court's contradictions concerning the commerce clause will have to be critically examined.

That's the only argument the administration has: the commerce clause.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
One positive thing that will come out of this is the court's contradictions concerning the commerce clause will have to be critically examined.

That's the only argument the administration has: the commerce clause.


NO IT DOESN'T! THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN HEALTHCARE! BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF HEALTHCARE IS EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL!

AND NO I DIDN'T LEAVE MY CAP'S ON. THE IDIOCY ON DISPLAY IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE IS SO GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
NO IT DOESN'T! THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN HEALTHCARE! BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF HEALTHCARE IS EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL!

AND NO I DIDN'T LEAVE MY CAP'S ON. THE IDIOCY ON DISPLAY IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE IS SO GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.



Calm down, chief. Can you explain fully what you mean? Your prior post wasn't very clear.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by korathin
NO IT DOESN'T! THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN HEALTHCARE! BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF HEALTHCARE IS EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL!

AND NO I DIDN'T LEAVE MY CAP'S ON. THE IDIOCY ON DISPLAY IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE IS SO GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.



Calm down, chief. Can you explain fully what you mean? Your prior post wasn't very clear.


/vents frustration valve



Congress can only regulate interstate commerce(Commerce between two or more states).

But, by an act of Congress(previous law's), it is illegal for health insurance companies to cross state lines. It is illegal for health insurance companies to engage in interstate commerce!

Thus, Congress no longer has the authority to regulate the commerce of health insurance. As the commerce of health insurance only takes place at the State level.

I cannot make it any more simple for you to understand.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by timidgal
There will never be a single payer system for all without first passing tax reform which fairly and commensurately ties annual income into a balanced taxing structure. We have to first put an end to big business and the 1% using loopholes to escape fair taxation responsibilities.

Without doing so, exactly where does everyone think the money for a single payer system will come from? Do you really think that the average American, barely able to scrape by on their salaries (if they're fortunate enough to have a job) is going to be happy over increased taxes? Do you think that our government, currently living on debt, will somehow find the trillions of dollars needed for a single payer system? The reason Medicare worked and is so loved by its recipients is because it was cumulatively funded by the sweat of generation(s) who a) understood its importance and b) had a different work ethic than the most recent generations. These were folks who saw their parents struggle through the great depression; baby boomers who understood the importance of future planning and imperative need to contribute toward their future. Simply put, a single payer system for all will never work unless taxes are commensurately calculated across all socio-economic segments of society and something is done to stop the never ending increase of medical and pharmaceutical costs.

As someone fluently familiar with the history of healthcare reform, let me provide some intel on the severability clause:

The first bill drafted was in June of 2009 entitled H.R. 3200 or America's Affordable Health Choices Act. This bill included the individual mandate and DID contain a severability clause. A summary can be found here and if you scroll down to section 155 on page 3, you'll see the verbiage. The major sticking point of this bill was that it included a public option in addition to private options, a provision which was later removed.

The bill then moved to the House of Representatives who issued HR 3962 or The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, which can be found here. It too contained a severability clause in Section 255 which can be found on page 145.

The bill then moved to the Senate, who modified it via HR 4872 or The Health Care Education and reconciliation Act which can be found here, which made no changes to the severability clause proposed in the house bill.

The final bill, HR 3590 or The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act, which can be found here, DOES NOT contain an explicit severability clause which leads to the doubts and suspicion many are having.

With all of this said, it's my belief (with great sorrow) that it's too late to hope for a total repeal of the law; however, I do believe that there are several sections which will be either modified or stricken depending on who is in power at the time of implementation. The law was designed to be implemented over an 8 year time frame. The provision most protested by big business is the "Cadillac tax" which won't kick in until 2018, way beyond any possible Obama term limit. How convenient is that?




As it appears that the severability clause was removed by the Senate,

Does anyone know WHO actually got that done ??

And more importantly WHY ??

It looks to me like THAT was one of the biggest

factors that was so obvious.

Why did the ranking Democrats even allow this to happen ??


I think we were set up



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by David9176
 


This is important. The SCOTUS made it quite clear to me anyway that a single-payer, universal-coverage plan may be within the confines of the constitution as long as there is no mandate.

I like the idea since it would allow people to get away from the burdensome insurance companies and allow the American people to negotiate through the power of their government for better prices on healthcare.

This would not only cover many more people, but would drive down medical debt.

So a decision in favor or the Republicans now may pave the way for a system they never intended.



Is Medicare and Medicaid considered by definition to be "single-payer" ?

If so, then those must be constitutional,
and therefore they will be the "default" to the ObamaCare failures ?
 




I like the idea since it would allow people to get away from the burdensome insurance companies and [color=cyan]allow the American people to negotiate through the power of their government for better prices on healthcare.

Interesting concept.

Is that being done now ?

Or has it ever been done in the history of Medicare or Medicaid ?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join