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

Originally posted by David9176
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)

Also, this takes business completely out of equation.

but insurance as we know it now will be gone

Will this cause massive unemployment from insurance industry layoffs ?

LET PEOPLE DIE. Turn them away at the ER because they are poor or have fallen on hard times

Was that happening before ObamaCare ?

Originally posted 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 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.

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

Could be, but wait till they press the economic issues. They'll do that closer to the election, and when they have a clear nomination.

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.

Wouldn't it be possible they pass some "emergency" legislation ?

Like perhaps have a few programs remain ?

Like the State by State Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) for one example ?



And I never did understand the problem with 21-26 year olds staying on parents policies.....

If the parents can afford the payment, what's wrong with paying for a separate policy ?

If struck down, this will be the best possible scenario for the more affluent communities. Because of the burgeoning number of uninsured and the financial stress that has put on the healthcare system, this will create a 'survival of the fittest' situation. Two things happen when people are without insurance: they forego basic healthcare and seek treatment only when things become serious (and much more expensive). Because they are without insurance they go to hospital ER's and (to a far lesser extent) hospital-based outpatient facilities. They cannot pay, of course, and the hospital takes the hit. This has been happening at an increasing rate over the last decade and has forced the closure of ER's, outpatient clinics and entire hospitals.

This situation is not, however, shared equally. Less affluent, especially rural communities, will be hardest hit and will lose their community hospitals. More affluent areas where people either have insurance or can pay for their care will be able to keep theirs. As they succumb to the fincnail pressure, hospitals will be forced to give up specialty services. Things like MRI, CT, some surgeries, etc. will be consolidated into wider and wider areas becasue of the cost of supporting these services. So where you may be able to get your CT scan at a hospital 25mi from you today, you'll have to travel 200 miles or more as things begin to implode.

It's too bad that a serious national problem has been morphed into a politcal game. And although lots of people have been duped into believing that defeating ObamaCare is a 'win'. The reality is far, far different. It's likely that it isn't the ideal solution. But the political tendency to avoid serious problems and simply 'kick them down the road' (like energy, infrastructure, the economy, etc.) is going to come back and bite us all i the ass in a very, very big way. It's a certainty.

reply to post by jtma508


With all that said,

Why in the name of God did the 111th Congress and the
President of the United States allow this to even become
a "challengeable" issue in the first place ?

Why was the "severability clause" removed ??



Does anyone else feel Hoodwinked ?

reply to post by jtma508


Another point of importance would be:

While Congress was busy passing what could become
one of the biggest (and most expensive) boondoggles in history,
how many people who are/were "insuranceless" have been forced into a stalled
treatment situation (if any) ?

How many have been denied surgery and died because of the money ?

I wonder how much taxpayer money was spent to get ObamaCare passed ?

Maybe that money could have saved a few hundred lives.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Not a bad point.

But why haven't the Dems started shouting about this yet

(especially if they were somehow "forced" or "hoodwinked")

Because even if they were forced to pull the severability clause at the behest of the GOP...they still "went to the mat" and then some to get the bill passed. It's difficult to point fingers after that. Plus to start griping about the severability clause already would be to acknowledge that the mandate is going to be stricken down and rhetorically throwing in the towel and the fat lady has not sung on that yet. The SCOTUS is a mysterious beast.

If this was a critical issue...the whole bill and it's amendment process is online...it's whole evolution...it should be searchable and whoever amended it to remove the severability clause will be associated with it. I'll try to dig it up.

Originally posted by xuenchen
And you would think the Repubs would lay claim to the "removal" by now

The silence from Congress on this issue is deafening !!

Maybe there is a joint hidden agenda afterall ?

Maybe....Many Repubs were following marching orders to oppose the bill and might have been closet supporters. Perhaps both parties co-sponsored an amendment to remove the severability clause? The GOP to protect insurance companies from being on the hook and the Dems in hopes that it would discourage a court ruling, cuz it takes balls to overturn an entire bill of this historic magnitude?

Originally posted by xuenchen
"Logic" as we see it as normal people, may not apply.

The politicians Are psychopaths.

Not technically "Psychopaths"...but often mildly sociapathic with meglamaniac tendancies. The nature of the job often draws people that have delusions of being above the people..oversized egos...oversized ambition...It sometimes culminates with them shocked that they actually get busted with hookers, coc aine, male prostitutes, posting pics of thier junk on Twitter...it is that crazy meglamaniac idea that the rules of average folks should not and do not apply to them.

The average citizen sits back and thinks...how stupid are these guys?...in reality they aren't dumb, just living in a delusional world where they think the rules don't apply and that God/The fates/Life will never punish them for thier transgressions...the rules simply don't apply to them.

That said...not all pols, but many. Newt, Larry Kraig, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer...if I posted the whole list a Mod would have to truncate it for taking up too much space.

reply to post by xuenchen


I'll start the work...

Here in the original bill before amending,,,

Section 155

SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this Act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

www.opencongress.org...

Lets see who amended this section...back soon.

Edit to add:.....GETTING CLOSER...The severability Clause was dropped in the senate

Following intense negotiation among the
congressional leadership, a final Senate bill was
introduced. S. Amend. No. 2786 to H.R. 3590, 111th
Cong. (introduced Nov. 19, 2009). This version
included guaranteed-issue and community-rating
rules, like each of its predecessors, and it also
imposed an individual insurance mandate, with
compliance enforced by “payment of [a] penalty.” Id.
§§ 1201, 1501. Notably, however, the Senate
amendment deleted the severability clause that had
been included in the House bill. Following further
amendments, exactly sixty Senators—just enough
under Senate rules, Sen. R. XXII—ended debate on
the bill on December 23, 2009; and with the same
sixty votes, the Senate passed the bill the next day.9

www.nfib.com...




Edit to add:

S. Amend. No. 2786 to H.R. 3590 in the Senate was the amendment that dropped the Severability clause.

To me the whole Obama Care law is Unconstitutional.

Unlike a tax that goes into a general pool that pays for everybody's healthcare.
We have to go out and buy insurance for ourselves.

Why must we be forced to prop up insurance companies?
Money should be going into a general pool that could be collecting interest that could help to pay for more healthcare.

I don't dig corporate welfare.

reply to post by grey580


If only we could trust the government to be trustee for our money. We tried that with Social Security and they have raided it to the point of collapse. With the precedent already set, they'd be on this like a fly on poop.

Originally posted by grey580
To me the whole Obama Care law is Unconstitutional.

Unlike a tax that goes into a general pool that pays for everybody's healthcare.
We have to go out and buy insurance for ourselves.

Why must we be forced to prop up insurance companies?
Money should be going into a general pool that could be collecting interest that could help to pay for more healthcare.

I don't dig corporate welfare.

Yah...that would have passed. The insurance industry invested a billion dollars in a negative PR campaign and owned the GOP...there is no way that a bill ending thier industry would have ever taken a single breath on the hill.

Originally posted by calnorak
reply to post by zarp3333

 

Hate to rain on your parade, but it took us over 100 years to get this far, it will not just end on one day. It might be the catalyst for freedom though

I don't know, man.. with all the executive orders on the books at President Paul's disposal...

He could use them for good rather than evil.

If its unconstitutional, this also applies to states..so any state that has a mandate will revoke it and go back to whatever it is.

They cannot force us to buy something ( a service, product, etc), but they can tax us and buy it for us...so, if this fails, then just up taxes, and do a single payer system as was desired to begin with.

Anyhow, I guess this may indeed end the GOP's healthcare bill (yep...see the 1990s republican plan on health care). Now..lets try something liberal

reply to post by SaturnFX


Medicare Part E (for everyone).

That's where we need to go. The conservative court will strike down what was originally a conservative concept. I agree....time to go the direction we should have went in the first place.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Medicare Part E (for everyone).

That's where we need to go. The conservative court will strike down what was originally a conservative concept. I agree....time to go the direction we should have went in the first place.

Perhaps you can explain what Part E is.

Is that the supplemental "medigap" insurance ?

Maybe not a bad idea, but how would the "main" coverage be handled ?

And even Part D (prescriptions).

I wonder what that would all cost as a payroll deduction.

reply to post by xuenchen

Perhaps you can explain what Part E is.

Medicare part D (prescription drugs) was the last part added to medicare.

When I say Medicare Part E, i mean Medicare for all. E for everyone.

Just expand the program for all to use...we all already pay into it anyway. Expand it, end the sweetheart deals we give to big pharma, cut out the profits, etc.

Right now it is only speculation as to how the court with decide this case. At this time, the first draft of the opinions are being written and decided on, before being passed to the other justices for their input.
And it is going to be a long process for the court, as the final decision will have been let known by June.

Part of the reason why it is going to take this long, is that the Justices have to justify their decision in writing and in their opinions of the case. They must have their staff research out the different aspects of the law, and then write such down, which would then be published. During that time frame, they can switch their votes and decide one way or the other, but nothing is set in stone until that final opinion is made and signed off on. There will be 2 opinions that will come out, those in support of the majority and the other will be those against.

Today, the Justices met to discuss their initial reactions and a general sense on how they will vote. Now comes the time of private reflection and decision making, as well as trying to gauge and sway the vote of their fellow judges.

If anything, it will be an interesting read of the opinions, as many judgments of similar future cases will reflect this very decision.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If its unconstitutional, this also applies to states..so any state that has a mandate will revoke it and go back to whatever it is.

They cannot force us to buy something ( a service, product, etc), but they can tax us and buy it for us...so, if this fails, then just up taxes, and do a single payer system as was desired to begin with.

Not true. If it were ruled unconstitutional it is because there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power to do so. The States are not limited in that regard.

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.

Doesnt the state have a say in what the contracts offered have to look like?