Poll: Obamacare

[RonG]

<object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=politics/2011/08/19/politics.cain.healthcare.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=politics/2011/08/19/politics.cain.healthcare.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>

 

[cavman]

<object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=politics/2011/08/19/politics.cain.healthcare.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=politics/2011/08/19/politics.cain.healthcare.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>

Imagine what obamacare would have done to the 9/11 first responders. A lot of them would have died waiting for treatment.

 

[bcort]

Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Health Law
By BRENT KENDALL

WASHINGTON—The long-awaited Supreme Court showdown over the Obama administration's health-care overhaul formally began Monday as the justices agreed to consider a high-profile challenge to the law.

The court, in a short written order, agreed to hear a challenge brought by a group of Republican governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individual plaintiffs.

The case raises several issues, but chief among them is this: Did Congress exceed its constitutional powers when it required most individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty?

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March, with a decision expected by the end of June. That timeline means the court will rule on President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement during the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether the law's individual insurance mandate is constitutional. The Justice Department, which is defending the law, and several challengers all filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.

The challengers, who view the insurance requirement as an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberty, argue that Congress can't use its interstate commerce powers to regulate citizens who choose not to participate in the health-insurance market.

The Obama administration argues the insurance mandate is a valid way to address a national crisis in which the uninsured impose huge costs on the U.S. health-care system. It also says the provision is an essential part of the law's insurance reforms, which require insurers to accept all prospective customers, even if they have pre-existing medical conditions.

In the event the justices strike down the individual mandate, the court also agreed to rule on whether the rest of the health-care overhaul can remain intact. The law's challengers are seeking to void the entire law, while the Obama administration argues that most of the law's provisions aren't connected to the mandate and should remain in place even if the insurance requirement is invalidated.

Many of the law's provisions, including state-based exchanges where consumers could comparison-shop for coverage, are scheduled to take effect in 2014.

The Supreme Court also agreed to consider a procedural question that could preclude it from issuing a major constitutional ruling: Do the insurance-mandate penalties amount to a type of tax that can only be challenged after it is collected, rather than before? If the answer is yes, then courts wouldn't have legal jurisdiction to consider such challenges until individuals start paying penalties after the mandate goes into effect in 2014.

Nearly all courts that considered the matter have decided that the challenges can proceed now. But a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., reached a contrary conclusion in September.

In addition to insurance-mandate issues, the Supreme Court said it would consider the state challengers' legal attack against the health-care law's expansion of Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that provides health care to low-income Americans. Lower courts ruled for the Obama administration on this issue.

Only the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down the insurance mandate as unconstitutional, ruling that Congress couldn't command that individuals purchase insurance products.

Three other appeals courts have ruled for the Obama administration, which scored a notable victory just last week when a leading conservative judge, Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that court's opinion upholding the law. The ruling served as a reminder that the outcome of the case may not fall strictly along ideological lines.

Conservative justices hold a narrow majority on the Supreme Court, and their views will be crucial.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and courts have interpreted that power broadly. A key question in the health-care cases has been whether the insurance mandate exceeds the outer reaches of that power.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of President George W. Bush, haven't had an opportunity to express their views on the commerce power since they joined the high court.

Justice Antonin Scalia also is likely to be a key focus of attention. The conservative justice joined two rulings in 1995 and 2000 that placed limits Congress' commerce power. But Justice Scalia also embraced a broader view of that power in 2005, saying Congress had the authority to prohibit seriously ill Californians from growing marijuana for their personal medical use, even though a state law allowed it.

Will be interesting over the next couple months how this plays out. It also holds huge political ramifications.

 

[DougHeil]

Excellent.

 

[DougHeil]

The Court gives us some clear specifics it wants to start:

Supreme Court to Take Health Care Case
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Updated: November 14, 2011 | 11:00 a.m.
November 14, 2011 | 10:05 a.m.


RICHARD A. BLOOM
President Obama signs the Affordable Health Care for America Act during a ceremony with fellow Democrats in the East Room of the White House on March 23, 2010.
The Supreme Court said on Monday it would consider the challenge to last year's health care reform law, setting up a major ruling on the Obama administration's signature legislative achievement just months before the presidential election.
The case is likely to be heard in March, meaning that a final decision is likely at the end of the Court’s term, in June.

Apparently in recognition of the complexity of the issues presented by the cases, the Court has asked for an unusual amount of time for oral arguments. The order said the court would listen to five and a half hours of arguments—a rare departure from its usual practice of allocating an hour to hear a case.

The Court has asked lawyers to answer four legal questions about the law in their briefs, signaling that it will issue rulings on each of them.

They are:
The individual mandate. The law's requirement that every individual purchase health insurance is at the heart of the many challenges to the law. The challengers contend that such a requirement is not permissible under the Constitution, because the commerce clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce should not able to compel individuals to purchase a product they do not want.

So far, two appellate courts have rejected this argument, ruling that the mandate is acceptable. One court has sided with the challengers, overturning the mandate.

Severability. When the law was passed, members of Congress said the mandate was essential to make other insurance reforms in the law work. If the justices strike down the mandate, they will have to decide whether that means the law can stand without it, or the whole law must fall.

The one court to overturn the mandate, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, found that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, and it ruled the whole law should be overturned.

Medicaid expansion: The health care law requires the states to expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs by offering coverage to anyone earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Critics have said it is an unconstitutional imposition on the states.

Jurisdiction. Judges in two appellate courts have argued that the time is not right for the courts to even consider whether the law is constitutional. They have cited an 18th-century law that prevents individuals from challenging their taxes until after they've been assessed and paid.

The justices will have to decide whether the law's penalty for not buying insurance functions enough like a tax that these rules should apply. If they agree with the argument, lawsuits will be barred until after the mandate goes into effect.

The Court had its choice of three cases that had been appealed for its consideration but appeared to settle on a case filed with the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which ruled in August against the law. A fourth case, from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was decided recently but has not yet reached the high court.

Parties on both sides welcomed the Supreme Court's embrace of the controversial case. The White House issued a statement expressing confidence about the outcome. "We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," said Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

Karen Harned, executive director of the small-business legal center for the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the challengers, sounded an equally optimistic note. “After months of uncertainty and frustration, small-business owners are finally within the reach of some clarity on how this law will ultimately impact their lives and their livelihoods. We are confident in the strength of our case and hopeful that we will ultimately prevail. Our nation’s job-creators depend on a decision being reached before the harmful effects of this new law become irreversible,” she said in a statement.
http://nationaljournal.com/healthcare/supreme-court-to-take-health-care-case-20111114

5 1/2 hours of oral arguments for both sides. Focused on 4 very specifics things that are crucial. The Court isn't wasting any time.

 

[Triplethreat]

I hate the thought of spending my well earned money on other people's health care, keeping it privatized is so much better.

 

[bob2the2nd]

The Court gives us some clear specifics it wants to start:



5 1/2 hours of oral arguments for both sides. Focused on 4 very specifics things that are crucial. The Court isn't wasting any time.

i am shocked at not only the length the court is willing to listen to arguments, but how quickly they are hearing it.

also doug i believe they are giving 5.5 hours total, not for each side. im a little hazy on my supreme court rules but i thought it was generally 30 minutes a side.

my gut is telling me the biggest part of this may rest in whether the court sees a difference between a fine/tax. i believe technically the way its written the money someone would owe for not getting health care turns into a fine. Now the argument on one side will clearly be "a rose by any other name" if you will. doesnt matter what you call it, its going to have the same basic impact. For example If Ben said everyone owed 5 dollars to be on here every year, but at the end of the year he would give you the money back if you made more than 5 posts, is that different than Ben telling everyone who didnt make 5 posts throughout the year they now owe a 5 dollar donation? it gets the same basic thing done, but does Ben have the ability to tell everyone they owe a forced donation, as opposed to a membership fee? Or going back to our real dilemma can congress charge people to pay if something isnt strictly a 'tax'.

 

[cavman]

I hate the thought of spending my well earned money on other people's health care, keeping it privatized is so much better.

Don't you do that now?

 

[KCOTT]

Since the Occupy Wall Street thread was closed and didn't get a chance to say this there, I guess I'll just say it here:

CavsFanLA, you're a dumb fucking disgrace of a human being to put somebody's daughter and the term body bag in the same sentence. Who has the human indecency to even say something like that? Go fuck yourself.

That's all.

 

[DougHeil]

i am shocked at not only the length the court is willing to listen to arguments, but how quickly they are hearing it.

also doug i believe they are giving 5.5 hours total, not for each side. im a little hazy on my supreme court rules but i thought it was generally 30 minutes a side.

my gut is telling me the biggest part of this may rest in whether the court sees a difference between a fine/tax. i believe technically the way its written the money someone would owe for not getting health care turns into a fine. Now the argument on one side will clearly be "a rose by any other name" if you will. doesnt matter what you call it, its going to have the same basic impact. For example If Ben said everyone owed 5 dollars to be on here every year, but at the end of the year he would give you the money back if you made more than 5 posts, is that different than Ben telling everyone who didnt make 5 posts throughout the year they now owe a 5 dollar donation? it gets the same basic thing done, but does Ben have the ability to tell everyone they owe a forced donation, as opposed to a membership fee? Or going back to our real dilemma can congress charge people to pay if something isnt strictly a 'tax'.

It was sold by Obama and Dems in Congress as a fine. At first it was sold as both jail time and a fine because they said the IRS would be hiring thousands more agents to make sure the Mandate to purchase health care was enforced. They backed off the jail time but kept the fine in place. They are now saying; oh no; it's a tax. No it's not. A fine is a fine. If you don't purchase the product, you are going against the law. When you commit a crime, you are fined for that crime.

And BTW: You can't tax just one segment of a population. When someone buys a product, one is taxed for that product. This issue involves someone NOT buying a product. How can it be a tax if you do NOT buy a product? See?

No; I believe it's 5 1/2 hours per side of oral arguments. The norm is 1 hour per side. At least I think.

 

[MRMsix6]

I hate the thought of spending my well earned money on other people's health care, keeping it privatized is so much better.

1. That is how insurance works. Unless you're making large claims and actually using it how insurance is meant to be used, you're paying for other people.
2. Medicare
3. Medicaid

Over 50% of all healthcare spending in the US is done by the government, and that number is rapidly increasing. If more of it actually were privatized we wouldn't see costs sky rocketing near the rates they are right now.

 

[DougHeil]

1. That is how insurance works. Unless you're making large claims and actually using it how insurance is meant to be used, you're paying for other people.
2. Medicare
3. Medicaid

Over 50% of all healthcare spending in the US is done by the government, and that number is rapidly increasing. If more of it actually were privatized we wouldn't see costs sky rocketing near the rates they are right now.

Yes. Not only that, but if we could all purchase health insurance like we can purchase auto insurance, costs would also go down as there would be MUCH more competition for your dollars.

 

[bob2the2nd]

It was sold by Obama and Dems in Congress as a fine. At first it was sold as both jail time and a fine because they said the IRS would be hiring thousands more agents to make sure the Mandate to purchase health care was enforced. They backed off the jail time but kept the fine in place. They are now saying; oh no; it's a tax. No it's not. A fine is a fine. If you don't purchase the product, you are going against the law. When you commit a crime, you are fined for that crime.

And BTW: You can't tax just one segment of a population. When someone buys a product, one is taxed for that product. This issue involves someone NOT buying a product. How can it be a tax if you do NOT buy a product? See?

No; I believe it's 5 1/2 hours per side of oral arguments. The norm is 1 hour per side. At least I think.

first the normal is half an hour a side rules of the supreme court-see oral argument

now as far as you stating "going against the law" no you arent, you are given a clear choice of if you want to pay the tax/fine for not having the health care or just having health care. But as I said I have no idea if the supreme court will end up ruling on this.

but remember congress per the constitution has the ability to levy taxes, it makes no stipulations about this other than the taxes must be uniform from state to state (which of course this would be), so you trying to argue you cant tax something for not buying it is a waste of time, congress can tax for the most part whatever it wants. So as i stated i think its going to come down to if this is a considered "tax"

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

first the normal is half an hour a side rules of the supreme court-see oral argument

now as far as you stating "going against the law" no you arent, you are given a clear choice of if you want to pay the tax/fine for not having the health care or just having health care. But as I said I have no idea if the supreme court will end up ruling on this.

but remember congress per the constitution has the ability to levy taxes, it makes no stipulations about this other than the taxes must be uniform from state to state (which of course this would be), so you trying to argue you cant tax something for not buying it is a waste of time, congress can tax for the most part whatever it wants. So as i stated i think its going to come down to if this is a considered "tax"

I highly doubt the "tax" issue will end up being a big deal in this case, the majority of legal scholars that have reviewed the language of the bill have pretty clearly determined that the mandate levies a fine in the form of a penalty, not a tax. The law itself dictates that the fee is a penalty and not a tax, so it's really not a big issue.

The core issue that will ultimately decide the fate of Obamacare is the constitutionality of the individual mandate and whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate a person's choice to purchase health care coverage. That's the main issue both sides have been gearing up to battle over.

My take? Clearly unconstitutional, shitty bill, wish Obama had the courage to push a real bill through Congress when he had the numbers to do so.

 

[gourimoko]

i am shocked at not only the length the court is willing to listen to arguments, but how quickly they are hearing it.

also doug i believe they are giving 5.5 hours total, not for each side. im a little hazy on my supreme court rules but i thought it was generally 30 minutes a side.

my gut is telling me the biggest part of this may rest in whether the court sees a difference between a fine/tax. i believe technically the way its written the money someone would owe for not getting health care turns into a fine. Now the argument on one side will clearly be "a rose by any other name" if you will. doesnt matter what you call it, its going to have the same basic impact. For example If Ben said everyone owed 5 dollars to be on here every year, but at the end of the year he would give you the money back if you made more than 5 posts, is that different than Ben telling everyone who didnt make 5 posts throughout the year they now owe a 5 dollar donation? it gets the same basic thing done, but does Ben have the ability to tell everyone they owe a forced donation, as opposed to a membership fee? Or going back to our real dilemma can congress charge people to pay if something isnt strictly a 'tax'.

Bob, it isn't really an issue of fines vs taxation. The issue at hand, regarding the individual mandate, is whether or not the government has the authority to require an individual pay a private corporation (a non-government entity) solely because they are alive. Think about it. There is no real legal precedent, including taxation. No American is required to pay the government a tax for being alive, and no American is required to buy insurance. We may be taxed for working, buying/selling stocks, purchasing goods, etc. We incur fees for buying passports, driving on toll roads, sending mail, mortgaging a home, etc. These are all actions that the Congress has the enumerated authority to levy taxes and charge fees, respectively.

However, the issue concerning the mandate is whether Congress can forego levying a tax/fine/surcharge, and instead, delegate the authority of taxation to a private corporations who would in essence be acting as federally sanctioned agencies. With regards to the mandate itself, it's the entanglement of private corporations collecting the money that causes the problem. If for instance, the federal government levied a health insurance payroll tax that individuals could configure on their W-4 forms as to what type of plans and coverage they wanted, and used the collected revenue to pay for group insurance coverage from private health insurance providers, such a system would be totally legal. It would be the equivalent of Congress privatizing Social Security, which again, would be a constitutional act; however, not without controversy.

Again, my personal opinion is that the individual mandate as outlined by Obamacare is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the authority to delegate the powers of taxation to private corporations, and Congress does not have the authority to require an individual to buy health insurance solely on the basis of being alive. Therefore, 100% fully paid coverage in the United States is impossible, because we are free to refuse to work and therefore can live without paying taxes. The health care mandate ignores this possibility entirely, and issues exceptions based on low-income, yet the requirement is still there. In order for Obamacare to work, within the confines of a free society as outlined by the Constitution, Congress must levy a tax and collect the revenues. Those funds must then either pay private health care companies (multi-payer) or provide government operated Medicare-for-All (single-payer.

The consideration for universal health care in this country is long past due, and it's a damn shame we don't already have a functioning health care system that provides lower-cost coverage with wider accessibility. However, as much as I want coverage for all (it's my #1 political issue, by far), I am not willing to see Congress overstep it's constitutional authority and I am not willing to tolerate any government encroachment onto my civil liberties. Obamacare, as constructed, sets a very dangerous precedent that clearly allows the Congress to simply reinterpret the Constitution under the Commerce Clause granting the federal government limitless authority rather than limited and enumerated powers.

p.s.
One other concern regarding the delegation of Congress' powers of taxation is that once enacted, Congress has limited ability to control what would effectively be the rate of taxation. For instance, if Obamacare is upheld, Americans will be required to purchase health care insurance. The government's argument is that it's a semantic difference between levying a tax and mandating a purchase; however, Congress has not determined a set price structure, a fee scale, or any form of price regulation for health insurance premiums paid by the individual. Therefore, private corporations can raise prices, thereby (using the government's logic) raising your effective tax rate - yet without Congressional approval. This is undoubtedly unconstitutional.