BS: Court strikes down health care insurance

Subject: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 04:31 PM

The U.S. 11th Circuit Appeals Court (Atlanta) ruled that Obama's health care provision requiring Americans to buy insurance is unconstitutional. Essentially, it ruled that Americans could not be forced to buy the health care insurance.
It also ruled that the rest of the law could remain in effect.

The ruling stems from challenges by 26 states.

The next stage is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington Post, Toronto Globe and Mail, Calgary Herald, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 04:35 PM

Where is Dennis Kucinich when you need him?

And just how do the Atlanta (hmmm) Court think the rest of that law is functional without that provision? Or is that their cunning plan?

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 05:06 PM

It was a phony way of pretending that a tax isn't a tax anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 05:12 PM

I wish they would have it, on a sliding scale of course.

I also wish there was a way for people to earn government style insurance. Mine is now worth $850 a month, from the state. If I became unemployed, I would be willing to work say half time in a nursing home or day care center or parks department or somewhere I was screened and trainable, in exchange for getting it. Once I got a job again I would want to go on the sliding scale. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: gnu
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 05:18 PM

I am no expert but it does sound like a logical conclusion based in common sense regardless of the constitution. I never follwed the legislation closely enough to know that such a clause existed. Could it be that the craftsmen of the legislation knew it was doomed because of such a clause which seems, again, on a basic level, preposterous? a bureaucratic nightmare? not enforceable? kinda stunned?

Am I off base here?

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:00 PM

They can require cyclists to wear helmets.... I think.....There ARE good reasons to expect everyone to pay something into the system when hospitals are required to treat you if, for example, you fall off your motorcycle...

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: gnu
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:01 PM

But, if people can't afford to pay, how do you make them pay? Are they suppose to sell their helmet?

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:04 PM

I hope the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, and the whole stupid plan is scrapped. It was Mitt Romney's plan to begin with, ferfuxakes!

There will not be any meaningful health reform unless and until the profit motive is eradicated from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:34 PM

A panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down one provision of the law. The Administration can now ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the decision, or take it forward to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit has already determined that the entire law is constitutional, so the divided record pretty much requires that the Supreme gets it next.

The Constitutional theory is that this is within the purview of Congress under the 'regulation of interstate commerce' clause of the Constitution. Medical care is certainly big business, and little if any of it is strictly local.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:41 PM

My guess is that the requirement is unconstitutional.
There may be other ways of requiring some form of payment from those who can afford to do so.

(In Canada, most of us pay towards medicare if we have income. We do not have anything like the U.S. Constitution.)

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:50 PM

read the details

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Janie
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:56 PM

What art said.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 06:56 PM

A Washingto Post article about the pros & cons after one judge ruled against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:10 PM

Several of the "details" in that interpretation of the Health Care Act (Bill D link) also are under threat (and were considered unconstitutional by another court, including allowing parents to keep children up to age 26 on their insurance).

The Supreme Court probably will get to rule soon on provisions in the Act signed by Obama. A slight majority of the states (26) consider the Act unconstitutional; and some have put forth their own interpretation. The situation cannot be allowed to continue without a clear ruling.

If the Republicans gain control in 2012, the entire Act will be rewritten.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:16 PM

An example of the current fractionation is the vote by the Ohio Supreme Court to allow voters to decide whether to reject parts of the health care law.
The sooner the Supreme Court rules, the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:21 PM

"The Constitutional theory is that this is within the purview of Congress under the 'regulation of interstate commerce' clause of the Constitution. ~ artbrooks


Now listen closely: the decision by a free citizen not to buy health insurance is not commerce it is nothing.

The Constitutional clause mentioned regulates ongoing commerce, it doesn't regulate the absence of commerce.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: GUEST,Allen in OZ
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:22 PM

In Australia we all pay a Medicare fee according to our income and it works perfectly well
Is the USA the only advanced country with no universal health insurance system ?

AD

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:22 PM

Seems as if these decisions keep falling down red state/blue state lines... Three judges in blue states say yes and three in red states say no...

Here's the rub... When this goes to Republican Supreme Court how will they decide, especially if Romney is the presidential candidate because his mandate in Massachusetts would go down with Obama's and then the Tea Party would jump on mandatory car insurance as unconstitutional because the Founding fathers didn't say anything about car insurance... Of course there weren't cars back then but there wasn't health insurance either...

I predict a 5-4 upholding of the provision, non the less... Take Romney out of the equation and 5-4 the other way... Kennedy will join the minority... That's my prediction... That is if the Court takes the case rather than just let it become political football bounced from one court to another to another to another...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: pdq
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:36 PM

THERE IS NO MANDATORY CAR INSURANCE UNLESS YOU DRIVE THE CAR ON PUBLIC ROADS.

IF YOU DRIVE ONLY ON PRIVATE LAND YOU NEED NEITHER INSURANCE NOR DIVERS LICENSE.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:38 PM

The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in October.
"Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the high court will rule but agreed that it may be a close vote by nine ideologically divided justices, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote."
The above paragraph by Reuters but other news agencies say pretty much the same.

The 11th Circuit ruling found that it did not pass muster under the clause or under the power of Congress to tax. The administration has said that the penalty for not buying healthcare coverage is akin to a tax.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion.
The two judges who wrote the opinion are an appointee by Bush, and an appointee by Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:41 PM

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the act that "everybody has to buy insurance."

There is a requirement that those who don't buy the insurance will have to compensate the government for uninsured benefits they are eligible for without being insured.

It's all very much like the "requirement" that you pay all your taxes on time. There's a specific and known interest rate on late payments, and most decent (cheap) tax programs can calculate any "penalties" so you're perfectly entitled to decide when to make the payment as long as you eventually settle up and pay the fairly reasonable additional costs. Of course there's always the threat of attachments, garnishments, and property seizures if you get too late, but it's a choice you can make; and it's a choice for which you can make "formal agreements" with the IRS for a change in the payment schedule.

You have to read the "exceptions" in order to know the rules.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: gnu
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 07:45 PM

JiK... thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 08:17 PM

There is NO REQUIREMENT in the act that "everybody has to buy insurance."

Gee whiz, ya mean PeeDee & the Tea Potty are lying ....again?

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 08:29 PM

If their lips are moving...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Janie
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 08:35 PM

Appellate court rulings have been very inconsistent regarding the health care law, and especially this particular (and crucial) provision mandating participation.

Without the mandate, health care reform short of a fully realized and socialized health care system can not succeed. Any notion of the assurance of universal decent (not perfect, and not plush) health care has to include the notion of shared cost and shared risk across society. I don't much care whether that shared cost and risk is in the form of increased taxes, a mandate to purchase some measure of medical insurance, or some combination of the two.

This latest action is the latest maneuver on the part of people on both sides (really should say "all sides") of the issue to follow the steps and procedures necessary to bring one or more of these cases to the Supreme Court.

There are no easy answers. Health care is expensive for a lot of reasons and more than half of those reasons have nothing to do with greed or expectation of unreasonable profit. I have yet to see any proposal that truly addresses reduction or containment of costs - only cost-shifting. I work in the healthcare industry. I have thought, and will continue to think long and hard about how to actually reduce the cost of providing care instead of shifting the cost of providing care. So far, I have no solutions.

The only firm conclusion I have reached is that the population of the world has already exceeded the carrying capacity of the world in many respects, including in terms of health care. As individuals, each of us have to make choices about individual or familial vs. societal wants and needs.

For some of us, those choices thoughtfully are hard. For some us those choices thoughtfully easy. Some of us don't think at all. We simply jerk our knees according to instinct or command or unexamined paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 08:47 PM

Those who don't like Obama...and anything Obama does, even if it helps THEM, are leaning on this "we don't like to be told what to do" notion as if it were a direct affront to God!

...and Janie's remarks ought to be printed in red letters and large bold type and ...and.... um...circulated.

She is quite correct... there ARE no easy answers, and we DO have to make some choices...just not the sweeping rejection of any health care plan, as Republicans are proposing.

I have said for years that if a cure for acne were discovered that required the entrails of 25 rare sea-turtles and cost $10,000, many would demand their insurance cover it! We cannot have everything, but there are basics that should be universal.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 08:47 PM

Far better to have public health insurance for all and eliminate the predatory private insurance system.

We have a health system in the States that only the wealthy can afford.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 09:14 PM

Here's the real deal:

People are going to get treated if they show up at most emergency rooms, regardless of their illnesses or injuries...

Who pays for their treatment when they can't/won't pay??? All of us...

Like department stores price their goods that reflect x% of shop-lifting, health care providers do likewise... In other words, the more folks who show up with lung cancer who have smoked 3 packs a day for 40 years or the morbidly obese who have eaten themselves into diabetes and congestive heart failure the more the rest of us will have to pay... There are no free lunches so we pick up the tab, one way or another...

So the Repubs want "no personal responsibility" here and the Dems wnat "personal responsibility"???

Very weird...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 11:03 PM

Bobert-
Try going to an emergency room for a heart check-up or a Pap smear.
I'm all for socialized health care. I've had it for the past 17 years, and if it involves higher taxes, I can't think of a better way to spend the money. Beats the hell out of supporting two wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Aug 11 - 11:11 PM

THERE IS NO MANDATORY CAR INSURANCE UNLESS YOU DRIVE THE CAR ON PUBLIC ROADS.

IF YOU DRIVE ONLY ON PRIVATE LAND YOU NEED NEITHER INSURANCE NOR DIVERS LICENSE.

OK. only require health insurance if they use the public roads.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 04:11 AM

Well I don't know why the US is so behind in terms of car insurance, but here in the UK

1. If you are the registered keeper of a vehicle, then you pay car tax or give a "Statutory off-road notice" ("SORN"). If you fail to do one or the other there is an automatic fine as such.

2. If you have not given SORN then it is a crime not to have insurance - and again there is an automatic fine as such.

3. It is also an offence to drive or keep on such land a vehicle without tax (except to go to a pre-booked MoT test, see below) or insurance (or a driving licence)

4. If the vehicle is over 3 years old it is further an offence to drive or keep it on such land without a valid test certificate (usually called an MoT).

This is in the interest of public safety and government economy. It costs less to enforce than relying on catching a miscreant on a public road, and it makes it harder for unlicensed uninsured drivers to use dangerous vehicles. Public opinion seems largely to be in favour of even more stringent measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 04:39 AM

As far as I can see, Medicare works very well for people over 65 years old. In many ways, it does seem better than the "socialized" medicine in other countries. Why is it, that we can't have a universal plan that works like Medicare does?

I think the Obama Administration missed the boat by trying to re-hatch Hilary Clinton's plan from the early 1990s, which also tried too hard to appease the insurance companies. The "Obamacare" plan that did pass, just doesn't seem very satisfactory - although I'm very glad that my 22-yr-old stepson will be included on my plan for a few more years.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Court strikes down health care insurance
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 11 - 08:01 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6505773/NHS-better-than-American-health-care.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services