General Discussion

earthside

(6,960 posts)

11. And deregulation will come again.

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:02 PM

Apr 2012

If the individual mandate is upheld by the Supreme Court, the very next step by the health insurance corporations will be the immediate commencement (if they haven't started already) of lobbying and campaign contributions to ease any ACA regulation that cuts into their profit.

Then we will be stuck with the worst of all possible health care worlds: buy corporate health insurance or be fined by the federal government ... and weak or non-existent regulations "to do right by the consumer."

This is why I have never believed that the insurance corporations are really all that against 'Obamacare'. Likewise the Repuglicans in Congress -- they are so shameless that they will indeed become defenders of the ACA while weakening all of its regulations.

Sadly, as we all know, that is how the political system works in Washington these days.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The individual mandate, a Republican idea which shows how far to the right the Dems have gone [View all] MadHound Apr 2012 OP

seems Phlem Apr 2012 #1

Yea, this site is nothing like it was six or eight years ago nolabels Apr 2012 #6

You know what? There are those of us who feel we are not allowed to say that the mandate is LEFT, patrice Apr 2012 #26

It may be a lot of things ... but it is not 'left'. earthside Apr 2012 #62

Dont forget Dokkie Apr 2012 #69

Just maybe it's Obama's way of ensuring that the individual mandate is off the table forever? nanabugg Apr 2012 #80

Obama is either that smart or instinctivly that lucky nolabels Apr 2012 #142

Or it could be used to provide "universal" health care through health savings accounts or some HiPointDem Apr 2012 #85

Well, that is a telling statement about how far to the right you and a lot of this country have gone MadHound Apr 2012 #86

Universal? Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #130

It was rejected b/c the insurance industry was still being unregulated. FarLeftFist Apr 2012 #2

There's only one meaningful regulation that is in the ACA MadHound Apr 2012 #8

So you say the MLR is meaningless? The PCORI??? wow. patrice Apr 2012 #16

If individual states can strike down MLR restrictions, and they can MadHound Apr 2012 #18

The PCORI doesn't do that for gov't; It's the tool by means of which CONSUMERS affect the exchanges. patrice Apr 2012 #24

You apparently haven't read the bill MadHound Apr 2012 #42

Why do you discount the fact that the PCORI is built out of actual empirical PATIENT CENTERED data? patrice Apr 2012 #57

And deregulation will come again. earthside Apr 2012 #11

With 1/2 a trillion of taxpayer money and ongoing premiums from vast numbers of captured customers Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #25

Question CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #27

I don't think they have been non-profit for a long time now.n/t Cleita Apr 2012 #32

K. I seem to remember them being one. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #41

And most people were never aware of the fact that among the truedelphi Apr 2012 #54

Supposedly from cutting "waste and fraud". But I think that is BS. I think it's more along the HiPointDem Apr 2012 #87

I agree with you - it will go down this way. CrispyQ Apr 2012 #115

The Dems are leaning right CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #14

Don't forget that the Republicans now rejecting the mandate have moved even further to the right libinnyandia Apr 2012 #3

The Republicans are moving further and further. . . Stargleamer Apr 2012 #4

Not Really liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #67

Watching The Sunshine Boys today, I realized that it has been 43 years EFerrari Apr 2012 #5

Nixon: the last gasp of liberalism. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #89

Some of that is right wing padding to make Nixon look EFerrari Apr 2012 #95

I'm not sure how it follows that the existence of AIM (founded 1968) means that Nixon HiPointDem Apr 2012 #102

Um, no one has made the inflated claims for the Civil Rights Act EFerrari Apr 2012 #103

I think wonkette leans left, and I believe her column was tongue in cheek. The nixon library, HiPointDem Apr 2012 #108

Well, I agree with the premise. EFerrari Apr 2012 #110

The mandate ProSense Apr 2012 #7

Yes, and all those plans, excepting Clinton's were Republican plans MadHound Apr 2012 #10

Huh? ProSense Apr 2012 #12

You said it, not me MadHound Apr 2012 #15

I didnt know you were a former Hillary supporter.. DCBob Apr 2012 #20

Umm, I think you are slightly lacking in reading comprehension MadHound Apr 2012 #31

FYI Dokkie Apr 2012 #70

Ok, yes, I did misread your post. DCBob Apr 2012 #73

No ProSense Apr 2012 #23

So you support Romney care, a Republican policy MadHound Apr 2012 #33

Regardless ProSense Apr 2012 #38

So again, you will support Republican policy, MadHound Apr 2012 #40

Again, ProSense Apr 2012 #51

Wow, you're linking to your own posts within the same thread now? MadHound Apr 2012 #81

Nixon's proposal was better, and didn't include a mandate. I believe this is descended from the HiPointDem Apr 2012 #93

Sad isn't it, when a Nixon policy proposal is better than a Democratic law. MadHound Apr 2012 #127

How so? Doesn't look similar to me. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #128

I don't understand: If you don't stand-up for a LEGAL mandate, HOW can you get to Single Payer? patrice Apr 2012 #21

Mandate to purchase a product from a for profit company MadHound Apr 2012 #34

Also a big, big similarity: Government REQUIRED to implement Health Care, ergo a mandate of somekind patrice Apr 2012 #43

You are stretching too far to try and make a point that simply isn't there. MadHound Apr 2012 #47

And you are not stretching far enough, in an extremely complex & dynamic REALITY. nt patrice Apr 2012 #52

Why? . . . please. patrice Apr 2012 #59

There is no such trigger in the bill, Patrice. TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #71

Nixon's plan *didn't* have a mandate. Like I told you before. Why do you keep saying it did? HiPointDem Apr 2012 #91

the mandate will always be a corporatist's wet dream.... mike_c Apr 2012 #9

This is crazy. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #44

Because while the "progressive" judges are indeed progressive on social issues, MadHound Apr 2012 #49

In transition from the GOP. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #55

They're not even all that progressive on social issues.. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #148

Because there hasn't really been a progressive judge on the court Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #109

What do you think he would have done? CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #116

I honestly don't know. Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #122

I am trying to figure the diff CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #123

I would have called both of them both. Pab Sungenis Apr 2012 #124

I think CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #125

Why did the Medicare Part D program get by with making us choose an insurance company for that jwirr Apr 2012 #13

Because the huge corporations own all the politicians. It is called Corporatism. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #17

Medicare Part D is a big fat boondoggle because of the corporate welfare factor. Zalatix Apr 2012 #82

Agreed but what I was asking is why it was constitutional and the HCR may not be? jwirr Apr 2012 #113

the notion that ins. cos. won't immediately start working to bypass any regulations in the ACA KG Apr 2012 #19

And there will be NO grounds to defend against those attacks if we yeild the Constitutionality of patrice Apr 2012 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #28

Excellent point. OccupyTheIRS Apr 2012 #29

Stereotypical characterizations don't include minimal hypothetical analysis of any other factors. patrice Apr 2012 #37

You know, it really is insulting when you accuse people of being tools, or victims, of the media MadHound Apr 2012 #46

What is not insulting about the assumptions which YOU make???? I will not attack your right to make patrice Apr 2012 #53

Not trying that shoe on, MadHound Apr 2012 #83

You Got It. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #45

And why, one may ask, has the media never spoken up for the truedelphi Apr 2012 #56

This is likely one reason they are rapidly losing viewership. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #74

I think it's very interesting how so many assume that O yeilded to the mandate out of some kind of patrice Apr 2012 #30

Given that he went from supporting single payer, then promising a public option, MadHound Apr 2012 #39

Well, he as sure as fuck wasn't going to be able to go anywhere with any of it unless he was elected patrice Apr 2012 #50

Refreshing honesty: kiva Apr 2012 #63

So you are admitting that Obama is simply another politician, MadHound Apr 2012 #88

No, he yielded the public option Maven Apr 2012 #76

yup, KNR hfojvt Apr 2012 #35

It really is amazing how the Republicans keep getting what they want obxhead Apr 2012 #36

Makes no sense. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #48

The "Liberal" (ha!) justices are establishing Constitutional authority for gov't implemented HC. nt patrice Apr 2012 #60

I would like to see that road map. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #61

I predict that they will uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And will do so HiPointDem Apr 2012 #96

Yep. Plus, the Republicans will likely lose this election anyway EFerrari Apr 2012 #98

And it's a nice set-up for the Republicans' return in 2016, maybe with Jeb. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #101

There are NO "Liberal" judges anymore, bvar22 Apr 2012 #152

Please, tell us why you know MORE about this than John Kerry does. nt patrice Apr 2012 #58

"Appeal to authority" = logical fallacy. Debate the argument or the information. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #92

Can you spell collusion? woo me with science Apr 2012 #64

Agreed. Heritage came out for the mandate in 1989. Now they're against it. (Wink, wink) HiPointDem Apr 2012 #97

Yes I can spell collusion Autumn Apr 2012 #129

knr Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #65

du rec. nt xchrom Apr 2012 #66

K&R /nt Dragonfli Apr 2012 #68

I have been watching the Republicans attack the very SomethingFishy Apr 2012 #72

The FIRE sector took over the Democratic party some time in the 90s.. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #75

It's the only way to get guaranteed issue. Recursion Apr 2012 #77

Thanks for saying this. progressoid Apr 2012 #78

The amicus briefs to the SCOTUS to shoot down the law tell you which side is REALLY right wing. joshcryer Apr 2012 #79

No, it is actually a well documented fact, MadHound Apr 2012 #84

It has nothing to do with "Obama support." joshcryer Apr 2012 #99

So why are Democrats such as yourself now pushing a plan that has its origins MadHound Apr 2012 #126

I'm not pushing it nor advocating it. joshcryer Apr 2012 #131

Ah, so you're saying we should have had the intermediate step MadHound Apr 2012 #141

What? Social Security had its own intermediate steps. It only paid workers. joshcryer Apr 2012 #144

Obama disagrees with you on a mandate for private insurance.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #90

Yep, and we laughed at that junior senator from Ill. joshcryer Apr 2012 #100

With the MLR cap on the insurance companies a sure fire way for them to make more profits is.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #105

It's a way ProSense Apr 2012 #106

No, the aggregate industry will not in fact make more profits. joshcryer Apr 2012 #132

It takes us in exactly the opposite direction.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #137

ALEC would agree with ya. joshcryer Apr 2012 #139

That doesn't ProSense Apr 2012 #104

One of the prime reasons I preferred Barack to Hillary was Hillary's support for a private mandate.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #107

That is one of the MAIN reasons I did not support her, as well. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #119

That was the only real difference between the two. joshcryer Apr 2012 #134

I suppose you championed his Harry and Louise ads, too. joshcryer Apr 2012 #133

So tell me... Fumesucker Apr 2012 #136

I'm familiar with that Drudge inspired stuff. joshcryer Apr 2012 #138

Hillary was inspired by Drudge? Fumesucker Apr 2012 #140

I post a link to a Media Matters article that references a Drudge talking point and you ... use it? joshcryer Apr 2012 #143

I wouldn't know if it's a Drudge talking point or not.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #147

The link I gave man, it's right there in the link! First paragraph! joshcryer Apr 2012 #149

Personal responsibility.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #150

Single payer would have a very real aspect of personal responsiblity. joshcryer Apr 2012 #151

My point being that "personal responsibility" has been a Republican talking point for quite a while. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #153

Eh, it was in the context of Hillary. joshcryer Apr 2012 #154

Oddly, my comment was also in the context of Hillary.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #155

True that. joshcryer Apr 2012 #156

Now that I look more closely I think I better read up before I shoot off my mouth. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #94

I have to laugh to see so many Dems - Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #111

Obviously ProSense Apr 2012 #112

I don't really care that much about it, but I do not like being framed as a right winger... joshcryer Apr 2012 #135

This: CrispyQ Apr 2012 #114

It's everywhere in the Party. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #118

The pattern over the last 10 years is frightening: bvar22 Apr 2012 #121

Thank you for that -- Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #145

Hear Hear! grahamhgreen Apr 2012 #117

I'll let THIS guy explain why a The Mandate is BAD for America: bvar22 Apr 2012 #120

Who IS that guy? progressoid Apr 2012 #146