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.

 

IF the Mandate Fails, government-run health care would grow

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
After the mandate, government-run health care would grow


If the Supreme Court throws away the Mandate, Now what?

This CNN article explores some possibilities.

By David Frum, CNN Contributor
updated 9:42 PM EDT, Mon April 2, 2012

(CNN) -- Suppose the Supreme Court does rule that the health care mandate is unconstitutional? What happens then?

(I'm not saying that they will, but let's play "what if?")

The famous individual mandate is just one piece of the new health care law enacted in 2010. Take away the mandate, and here are two principal elements left behind:


Possibilities ?

-- A huge expansion of the Medicaid program

-- Tough new rules on insurance companies


1. The private insurance market will crash in a spectacular train wreck.

2. The Medicaid program will grow.

3. Meanwhile, the Medicare time bomb will continue to tick.
Details in the story


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 !!

And Obama himself taught constitutional law for 10 years or whatever it was !!

Do we think all the ObamaCare "flaws" were that tricky to fool the best minds in Washington D.C. ?

 


BUT "what if" the whole scenario is Planned !!

The existing Medicaid/Medicare system is already lawful and Constitutional.
(right ?)

If ObamaCare fails, the default is to increase Medicaid by allowing more members.

If ObamaCare is upheld, the system will be overloaded with people who don't have full time jobs
or employer paid insurance, and therefore may not be able to afford an individual policy.

But then, Uncle Sam steps in with the exchanges State by State and gives subsidies to those people.
(most likely a "Medicaid" style default anyway, but using "private" insurance).

In all cases, the government will be paying much of the bill.

Then the "Government" starts crying how they can't "manage" and "administrate" the system.

Then they simply hire the private companies to cover the entire State by State "group policy".

They may have devised a brilliant plan to attempt a furthering "revised Marxist/Corporatist" style system !!

Think about it !!


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

Obamacare Day 3: Does Medicaid Expansion Violate 10th Amendment?

ObamaCare - Pre-Existing Conditions - State by State




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Gee thanks Democrats for causing this fiasco. I learned my lesson before the supreme court even started hearing the case.. never .. ever .. vote Democrat. Obamacare is the only reason I will ever need to regret voting for a dem.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
First, 'Marxist/Corporatist?' Do you know anything about Marxism?

Second, this was the whole reason for the third day of the hearing last week. If the mandate falls does the rest of the bill, which is generally considered constitutional, fall as well?

If the SCOTUS strikes down the whole bill it would be a huge leap from their role as mediators of government. They would normally declare a portion of a law unconstitutional and have congress rectify it or offer suggestions to congress on how to rectify a problem.

When asked by the justices what would happen if they struck down the whole law the attorney for the opposition answered that congress would create a bill 'in a few days'. This, literally, drew laughter from the justices. Even they know congress is broken and wouldn't be able to fix anything in a timely manner.

If the mandate is found to be constitutional, it'll open the door to a single-payer system and very likely destroy for-profit insurance companies in America. Was this intended? Probably not...no one, in all the country, could have foresaw that.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Hmm...between a rock and a hard place.
I don't like either of those options listed as they are merely temporary band-aids to overall problem.

Also, I don't think you could solve the medical-financial dilemma in this current paradigm without having to also make broad sweeping changes to everything else in order to balance the economic system, which is not feasible in any productive manner until TPTB are stopped at least.

Really the only feasible solution is to focus on eliminating the corruption I think. That will actually solve the problem, which is corrupt people making extremely unethical or illegal decisions while in positions of great political, economic, or military power. That is why the whole system is screwed isn't it after all?

Any reasonable person who has thought about it knows that vast portions of the financial wealth are being absorbed at neck breaking speed by the corporate consortium, increasingly so.

With the criminal elements out of the way (or at least on the run), society will be able to finally build wealth without being robbed all of the time, and thus will be able to increase entrepreneurial job creation and will invigorate supply and demand dynamics. In theory it would increase the economic output potentials across the board.

Solving the currency medium issue with the FED, creating a transition phase to bring money(debt) creation back to the Treasury directly (a public agency rather than private). Ending that endless inflationary cycle is important.

No more secret meetings between public officials any anyone of power in any matter of state, that way plotting will be much more difficult and will have to go underground where it belongs. No more gifts or bribes, we gotta police all of that stuff out.

Once we roadblock the routes through which these powerful entities rob us of our wealth creation ability, we will begin to see a drastic improvement of economic living conditions, which will lead to better educational, financial, and health care options for everyone.

Cleaning up and transitioning to a properly run governmental system will grant us many opportunities that we hardly know of in today's system. By simply protecting the rights of citizens, rather than trampling them, we can easily make a huge come-back. The corporations and the government must be put in their place and begin to serve the people rather than subjugate or fleece them.

The world isn't over yet so we might as well try for something logical like that at least.
When are we the people going to put this mandate on the government?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The court is well aware of the above. They will either throw out the whole HCR law or uphold the mandate.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
If the SCOTUS strikes down the whole bill it would be a huge leap from their role as mediators of government.


They aren't mediators for government, they are suppose to be mediators for the individual/minority against the tyranny of the majority. Striking this entire thing down would do just that.

As for this tripe by CNN, it basically says: you're going to be taxed in one way or another. Well, good for them, maybe we can get more welfare challenges in the Supreme Court because of it.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join