A "Public Option" Would Not Be Overthrown in the Courts Like Obama's Mandated Healthcare Has Been.

[David Zephyr]

Public services provided to the People are paid for through the tax system.

A Public Option or Single Payer Health-care would have fit into the long established and legal precedent of government provision through taxation just like public schools, Social Security, Medicare, police and fire and more.

Either a public option or single payer healthcare would have not have been and could not have been thrown out in the courts.

Mandating Americans to purchase a service or a commodity, especially health-care, will never stand up and will lose at the Supreme Court of the United States, especially this Supreme Court.

Today's predicted defeat for President Obama's ill-conceived "deal" with insurance companies is the first nail in the coffin of the stupid concept. It's finished.

President Obama pissed away a moment in history that will not come again for our generation to provide health care, Medicare for all, or even an incremental expansion of Medicare to children and those 55 and older (which would have passed the Senate and the House, along with provisions for pre-existing conditions).

To Speaker Pelosi's credit, the House of Representative passed the Public Option only to have the White House negotiate it out.

President Obama wasted his first entire year of his Presidency on this doomed "mandated purchase" concept. And it cost us the House of Representatives and nearly the Senate.

Instead of focusing on job creation and the housing disaster, the White House fiddled to this idiotic song that will now be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

One year wasted for nothing.

What an idiotic approach to solving the health-care crisis in this country. And, predictably, it failed.

We are back to square one on health-care and there will still be over 30 million Americans without health-care.

It's simply appalling.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. I was thinking the exact same thing.

With a public option the HCR law may have prevailed in court.

[tracy_winzer01]

19. i agree

agree

[tracy_winzer01]

20. i agree

agree

[Still a Democrat]

35. But it wouldn't prevail in Congress

so it's moot.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Still a Democrat]

42. That's one decision

there will be many challenges and appeals.

[molly77]

89. I never thought that the HCR bill that passed was legal. Mandated health care.

Big Pharma and the health care industry stocks going up the next day after passing...that was a "tell".

[Cherchez la Femme]

176. With over 70% of the citizenry for it?

Even Republicans aren't that stupid,
but then I posted about this in another place so I won't belabor the point.


Additionally, you and your ilk will never know until you at least TRY

and you don't try.

Ever!

[Enthusiast]

192. Yes, we should just give up.

You're right.

[harun]

36. The Bill prevailed, this is just one portion of it and both sides agree

the Supreme's will decide it.

As far as I am concerned it is a much better bill without the mandates. No need for them.

[David Zephyr]

56. There would not have been a viable challenge to it.

They could have expanded Medicare to children and those over 55 and included Medicare to cover those with pre-existing conditions who were not covered by insurance.

All within the system. Even Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman supported this.

[Demeter]

2. Let It Go--Work for Single Payer, or Medicare for All

there's no need to obsess over this turkey of a plan. Let the GOP do the chopping, clear the way for a true reform.

If the Supremes are smart, they will just chop out the bad portion of the bill, and keep the regulatory parts. But you and I know, they aren't that smart...

[truedelphi]

167. Very goodpoint abt working for Singel Payer Universal HC. Thank you. n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

177. That sounds great

but under this administration??

Hmmm....

[BREMPRO]

221. a blessing in disguise?

This may or may not be overturned by SCOTUS- two judges have said it was constitutions, only one unconstitutional- and only the mandate, not the other provisions in the law. I can see why the mandate is necessary so people just don't wait until they are sick to buy insurance, but this does give us an opportunity to revisit and lobby for a public option or medicare for all.

[abelenkpe]

3. So does this mean we don't have

to buy car insurance too?

[David Zephyr]

5. Already a discredited analogy.

You choose to purchase an automobile. The insurance is part of that purchase choice.

It's commerce and it can be regulated.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. +1

Thanks for refuting this particular red herring.

(Edited to fix atrocious mixed metaphor)

[caseymoz]

151. And you don't purchase health care, one way or another?

Really, I'm sorry, there was no rhyme or reason to this decision. None. Congress has all the powers "Necessary and Proper" to it, that's in the Constitution. As long as it doesn't step on the rights of the other two branches, nor openly contradict the Constitution and rights (and it doesn't here) the laws Congress makes are supposed to be supreme. That includes a law to make a purchase like this.

Now, I don't really disagree with Zephyr's basic message, though. This was predictable given our activist conservative judges (and this is judicial activism) but this ruling by itself is harmful to the US. By limiting Congress like this and not limiting the Presidency, we are guaranteed to have paralysis of law and into this will step dictatorship.

[shimmergal]

156. It does contradict the Constitution.

by amounting to involuntary servitude for those "mandated" to buy insurance from a profit-making entity.

[caseymoz]

158. Purchases are not involuntary servitude!

Period! Whether going to profit entities or government. Where in the Constitution is a purely modern connection ever made that purchases are the equivalent of involuntary servitude? Point to clause, please! This is a "joke," similar to saying taxes are actually muggings, but applied as though it's a reality. It's Republican misinformation, basically, muddled thinking, and it's not close to what really happens.

Mandates are the closer to being taxes, with direct, individual taxpayer benefit. No, "involuntary servitude" is what it says: you work, you can't quit, and you never get paid. I think that's much more total and oppressive, too.

This might have other flaws to it, such as, it goes to somebody else's profit, but that for-profit entity is at least obligated by law and contract. It has obligation, it's not like directly stealing other people's money, or "enslaving" them, where the master really owes the slaves nothing. And given that Repubs think contractors are so great, who do you think was bound to administer the "public option" anyway?

Now, how it really ends up in practice not followed the way I've stated, but your model of what's going on there is flawed to its core. Moreover, at least once it started, Congress could go in and change it when it doesn't work. Now we have nothing to work with.

[Cherchez la Femme]

182. If there is no other option

yes, it does sound like involuntary servitude

First; it's Big Brother deciding for you allowing you no recourse,
--no matter how beneficial it may be for you--
it's what you must do.

Second; where is the Freedom to make decisions for oneself? Even if they're detrimental or the wrong ones?

I hate --yeah strong word but I do-- how the 'Town Halls' were overrun by a partisan minority of paid, bussed-in 'advocates' against (weird choice of words, I know -- sorry, wired on coffee and have work to do so I gotta rush this) Health Insurance ("Care") but I DO understand why the Teabaggers are upset about this.

What Rumsfeld said regarding the Iraq looting was a nasty thing to say, I hated him before he said it, during and after it. Nevertheless it was essentially true: as much as I wish the Iraqi's didn't loot their own country's unique & irreplaceable treasures; Iraq, the cradle of civilization,
In case anyone forgot, what he essentially said: 'when you're free you are free to do negative things' (way paraphrased). It is authoritarian, totalitarian societies --not socialist, in the truest sense of the word-- who dictate exactly what one can and can not do to the Nth degree,
especially with their own private property (don't forget Socialism is NOT Marxism -- private property, in wise moderation and with care towards their fellow citizens needs, IS allowed
it's even approved of, to a certain extent)

HOW can this country either in good conscience or legally withhold non-financial benefits, grants, money or criminally punish those who wish not to buy in to their scheme?
Of course I'm not talking about looting/stealing or other TRUE criminal acts!

How is anyone free when they have to absolutely obey without recourse the arbitrary dictates of their, or any, government!


IMO this country has redefined Freedom to an unrecognizable form even since the Revolutionary War. From my readings & understanding, I do believe our Founding Fathers would be aghast.

[caseymoz]

217. Sounds like? With some (a lot of) poetic license, maybe.

I'm sure an actual slave or a prisoner on a chain gang, even for days, will know the difference. You're still working where you want to, you can still change jobs, you don't have anybody terrorizing you to do more work for free, not to mention the fact that lawmakers had some reservations about it, too, hence the penalties for it were light and the collection mechanism almost non-existent. In other words, any similarity between this an involuntary servitude only applies inside your skull.

Funny you're not talking about "TRUE criminal acts" but you plop the Iraqi looting into it anyway, so I take it you were speaking on-topic in some way. So, we're free to do negative things. With that argument, we could withdraw our entire domestic police force, take all our laws off the books, and celebrate freedom the same way Iraqis did. The US would have been no better than Iraq if that were done. We would have found that "negative choices" would be the default. Oh, maybe it would have taken a few days longer, but once the thefts and killings started, it would have escalated as people would have panicked about they themselves being left looted and in poverty and would have joined in. I'm so amazed you would bring Rumsfeld and Iraq into this. Not only is it off topic, but there is nothing that could have negated your point more.

I'll make it more on topic, the freedom to let people make negative choices is the cornerstone of your argument. If that's your entire argument, it can and should be applied to other areas of government. Making the bad choice, in this case, would deprive other people of health care.

Our country has re-defined freedom since the Revolutionary War? The cause of the difference of then to now is overpopulation. You are not going to have as much need for government in a sparsely populated land with rich natural resources. The more populated the land gets, the more people have to be regulated. The harder supplies are to get in to resource deprived areas (i.e. cities, suburbs) the more you have to regulate that. Plus, our country wasn't nearly as free as you believe. (See A Renegade History of the United States.) Not only is the country more overpopulated, but world is. The world of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is gone. It's not coming back, ever. The values of the world then are either ineffective are harmful in this world. Finally, this is being exacerbated by income disparity. A larger, more imposing government, is a direct result of a larger population. For a quick check on that correlation, compare the governments in California and New Jersey to the ones in Wyoming and New Hampshire.

Now, those are bold statements I know. Maybe you don't believe any of them, but it's a different sort of world than what you had then: where you could simply move away from government if you didn't like it, where people could practically barter and were not so dependent on currency stabilized by the government, where you could find just any plot of land and farm it, and where, if the government raised taxes, you could either move away or cheat very easily, thus undercutting the government's revenue from higher taxes anyway. Today you could move to a different state government, but by almost any standard you can cite, state and city governments have become far more for freedom and more despotic than the federal government.

Fact is, for your complaints, the government has long asserted the right to tax you any way it wants any how it wants. It has stood the test in courts. That has every quality, every onus you complain about with the mandate. The government also has the right to spend it how it sees fit. It's taxation with representation. The reason for the mandate, like the reason for taxes: the public good. They can't let healthy people not be taxed for a health system that they would eventually use, (or die.) To think you won't ever have medical needs is beyond dumb. If you think the tax is onerous, well, you have Representatives and Senators, but you can't just legally or rightfully declare yourself an exception. No government or social system can exist that way.

This has a lot more in common with a tax than anything. If you see taxation as slavery, i.e. you've bought into conservative arguments: there's no way to run a government without it. Actually, wait, there is. It's called corruption. A fee for use. And having no taxation and a corrupt, ineffective government is far worst than having a good government with taxation, even if it's higher than you think it should be. You're money is worth less in a poor government. You pay more in corruption and inefficiency costs alone.

Meanwhile, if you don't think you should be obligated to anyone else, if that's the way you define your freedom, they only way you can do that now is literally be at war. Kill as many of them as possible, because eventually they'll get tired of your attitude and they'll kill you.

[no limit]

223. So having government force you to buy beanie babies would be constitutional?

[caseymoz]

225. How does the most ridiculous example say anything about reality?

Yes, Congress has that power. Why not? They have the power to tax you and give you absolutely nothing. That's in the Constitution. If they have that power, they definitely have the power to demand your money go for a direct purchase. Hell: they do that now. Social Security and Medicare. I guess they could tax you and purchase the insurance for you from a company, or pay a bunch of contractors to administer public insurance, but which sounds more efficient? To make the mandate unconstitutional brings the whole legislative process into question and threatens to make it unworkable. Congress has to have the power to raise and distribute funds, with any type of tax they see fit. That's basic to a legislature.

To say that Congress can't hypothetically do that is to deny what Congress is designed to be: the supreme branch of government. And if you deny the "Necessary and Proper" powers of Congress that enable it to function with the powers a legislative branch has to have, you don't get more freedom. You actually create a power vacuum and president then will have the power to make you do that: without laws. Hell, the way things are, the President can now have you killed. Why wouldn't he be able to do that, without even a law to repeal? Some branch of government actually has that power.

Now, in theory, you're supposed to be able to vote your reps & sens out or have recall elections when they pass laws that are inane, like a beanie baby purchase. That part of the process isn't working very well, we don't have enough Congressional turnover. That needs to be strengthened, but its a different subject.

I'm tempted to say from you example, though, complain when you have to purchase a beanie baby, or when you get one instead of medical care. Beanie Babies seem a small thing compared to, say, imprisonment without charges, which is what the President can actually do, and which the courts have supported.

[no limit]

226. If what you said is true the most ridiculous example that I provided must also be true

taxation was something that needed an amendment. So I'm not sure I agree with you that because the 16th amendment allowed the government to collect income tax that automatically allowed them to force us to buy a commodity. But if that's what you actually believe I really have no interest in arguing this with you, we'll just have to leave it there.

[caseymoz]

227. Ratified Amendments have the same weight as the original Constitution.

So now I'm such an enemy of freedom that I'm unworthy of your wisdom! I'm crushed! When your most intelligent argument is . . . Beanie Babies I wasn't expecting Aristotle or John Stewart Mill anyway.

The Constitution was amended because its taxation scheme was to rigid and unworkable before that. If the Amendment (16) were repealed, it would be equally unworkable. What do you think the Whiskey Rebellion was about? Those farmers thought Congress didn't have a right to impose a general excise tax. The courts then said that Congress did have the right. No less than George Washington . . . informed the rebels of their error. Nowhere in the current Constitution is Congress' ability to tax limited. Nowhere.

And here's the section I refer to article 1, section 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Then same section, clause 16, about the powers of Congress: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Which would you rather have? The slight possibility that you would have to buy Beanie Babies, or the much greater possibility of a country that has, essentially, no working government? Where you have to bribe an official to get a simple government service. Which of those do you think you'd be generally freer in? Which of those sounds realistic to you? and cheaper.

A lot of people think like you. That freedom is mostly commercial, mostly about guarding your money from the government. Actually, the encroachments on our freedom now almost all have nothing to do with "government greed." If anything, we're directly killing the government by too greatly limiting its power to tax, and the wealthy and corporations are taking advantage of this, while they take their cuts of corporate welfare. They're putting out this propaganda, and we're undercutting the only thing that can protect our freedom.

When the demand for freedom begins to undermine the government that protects freedom, that's when it goes too far. We have to run a government or freedom evaporates.

If what I said is true then what must be true? That will have to buy beanie babies? You're forecasting this? If not, which part of it is true?

[no limit]

229. Yes, Ratified Amendments have the same weight as the original Constitution

Did anyone disagree with you on that?

The 16th amendment says this:

-------------------------------
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
-------------------------------

Now, I'm not sure how you interpret that to mean that the government can force us to buy a commodity from a private company.

Like I said, I don't have interest in arguing this with you. Your reply is the reason why. You are arguing against an argument nobody made.

And as far as your second reply goes about my "analogy". I actually wasn't making an "analogy", I was just asking you if you think that it would be perfectly consitutional for the government to force us to buy beanie babies (I didnt ask you how likely that would be). You said it was. I disagree. So there you have it. Have a nice day.

[caseymoz]

231. So, if they take you money and give you nothing directly? That's allowed.

Can't you just throw the Beanie Baby away and pretend they simply taxed you? How dissimilar are the two? Or refuse the medical insurance, since your premium is to pay for everybody else, in other words, do the same thing a tax would do if we had the public option instead.

BTW, I wasn't talking about your analogy. You weren't making one (so you would have been correct in putting that in parenthesis had you not made the prior mistake). I was talking about the analogy I was making to your Beanie Baby example. I wouldn't have been that dumbed down about it, but I'm used to people accusing me of switching subjects when I don't announce an analogy I'm making.

[caseymoz]

228. An analogy of your argument.

You're argument is like saying that because you can (are able to) jump out an eighteen story window that you have to be constantly restrained, because either you will jump or whatever you do instead will be just as bad.

Just because Congress can, theoretically, compel the purchase of Beanie Babies doesn't mean everything it does instead will be just as stupid or bad, or damaging to freedom.

[truedelphi]

230. Taxes as legalized in this nation are akin to muggings.

They are totally regressive according to payment scale, they are "legalized" by a group of people that more and more average citizens are coming to realize are a Criminal Class, and the taxes Americans pay offer less return per dollar to that average citizen than the offerings of other nations to other citizens.

It is said that taxes are higher in European nations - and that is true. But the taxes are not as detrimental to the lower middle of tax payers. And citizens often get a great deal in return - things like Health Care. And in Australia, the government pays its citizens college tuitions.

[caseymoz]

232. How revenues are expended is a different topic.

I'm not happy with it either, but the taxes I feel most in my pathetic bracket ere actually state and local taxes. Not federal ones.

I know nothing about the "return" but if you would average in all recipients, rather than say, the lower and middle classes, then the "return" would be quite the same as the revenues. It wouldn't be correct to say the taxation is a mugging then. A government has to do it regardless. What goes on during the expenditure process would be the thievery.

I have no facts on how expenditures are allotted in other countries.

[truedelphi]

233. Money taken by the average tax payer and transferrred over to the Ultra Rich -

By the force of Law, that to me is indeed a mugging. I really don't know how else to conceive of it.

The fact that "mugging by taxation" is "legalized" does not soothe me in the least.

[caseymoz]

234. Okay, hyperbole-to-earth time, you're not walking away physically injured.

I know it's outrageous, but calling it mugging doesn't make it sound bad: it makes it sound like humor or fantasy.

Just the government's right to taxation is not a mugging. It can certainly be adjusted so that the rich steal money from the poor. That's likely the way it is now. I don't know enough about this topic, so I'm not going to say any more.

[truedelphi]

238. I beg your pardon, but I disagree.

If this was merely an unfair tax code, which has been in perpetuation upon the middle Calss for decades, I would agree with you. When I was forced by IRS rules to pay as much to the IRS as Richard Nixon did back in 1972 (never mind that he made lots of money through investments and received a $ 200K salary, while I was about 4 % points above poverty) ) that was simply a bad situation.

But now it is much more than a bad situation. I would call it a legalized "ghetto-ization" or a legalized "mugging." It is affecting those in their late forties on up more than younger people who are whites and in their middle thirties. It is of course also affecting anyone struggling to deal with a disabled family member. It is also affecting people of color who haven't gone to the Ivy League style colleges that Barack and Michelle managed to attend.



We are wounded, we are bleeding. The "muggers" in this case are not "directly" causing our wounds, or our illnesses, or our bleeding, but they are indirectly causing it.

Some of us consider suicide on a daily basis. (This was my case back in 2006 and 2007, right after my household was wiped out by a medical bankruptcy and I was being refused work due to the fact that no employers will hire someone whose age means exorbitant insurance premiums.)

Call it what you will, but America has now has as "normal" a ruthless Political Class that is determined to legalize (through a deliberately poorly set up system), the elimination of an entire class of people. this is doen through those mechanisms that rob us in the Middle and lower Middle Class of the ability to work, of our ability to continue to pay our mortgages and our rent, and our ability to keep food on the table and needed meds in the medicine cabinets, this is not just some type of "dis-organization.

It is very organized. The IMF and the World Bank have been seeking the impoverishment of America's middle class for decades, and under Bush/Obama they are definitely putting the last nail in the coffin of the Middle Incomed. It could also be called a systematic elimination of groups of people, I don't care what it is called. But it is destroying people's lives, and they are just as dead after they use their last day's worth of utilities to gas themselves to death, as they would be if some thugs beat them to a pulp and left them in an alley.

[caseymoz]

242. Well, I've been 4% above the poverty level

. . . and I'm below that now, and nothing of the sort has ever happened to me. Explain that. I don't know about the Nixon administration but . . . that was 40 years ago and there have been a few changes in the tax rules since.

I've usually received a lot of money back from my return, I've received EITC a few years and it has been a life-saver. That's right, received money from the taxman because I was poor, and once it was the only revenue I received that year.

I have been bankrupt. I have been suicidal. For 2008 I was too ill and my life too unstable to file a tax return. I filed it this year. Paid the interest and penalties ($12) and that was it. I am a caregiver in a family of three (3) disabled people. I still haven't seen the heavy hand of the tax man.

So, with much the same experiences that you've had, and I'm in my fifties, I simply don't see the same hostility from the IRS that you do.

I agree with you about the other points you've made. The tax system, though, as far as the Federal government is concerned, isn't shaking poor people down that much. (The states are a different thing). It's under-collecting from the wealthy and it's providing them with all kinds of expensive welfare, but it's mostly doing this by borrowing and running up debt. That's a drain on the poor, but it's not done so much through the tax system.

So, I can't confirm your claim in my experience, which sounds similar, and I've never seen it supported by fact. Sorry.

[mmonk]

239. We used to have a federal system that benefited more people

but as federal income taxes were cut and/or leveled out at the top end, there was less money coming in and more cuts in domestic spending in areas that benefit the middle and lower classes. When those things are cut, the more regressive taxes tend to go up on the state and local level to make up for the shortfalls. Education is a good example, especially in recessions when revenues are even lower. This means increased property taxes and such which hit fixed income and lower income people harder.

[mmonk]

240. You're correct. We're being gamed right now. Things that benefit

the middle and lower class helping make or keep life affordable enough to make a diffrence so people can make a difference and their children get opportunities is being sacrificed for the top. The top will say they are for "fair" or flatter taxes that spur growth, but a 3 or 4 % cut at the billionaire level is a whole lot of money to take out of our revenue system where a 3 or 4 % cut at levels below $100,000, not so much. We're canabalizing our institutions and making them more costly.

[truedelphi]

241. Thanks kindly, mmonk. Like Woodie Guthrie used to sing:

"Well, you say that I'm an outlaw, and you say that I'm a thief
Here's a Christmas dinner for the families on relief

As through all the world I've rambled, I've seen lots of funny men,
Some rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen

As through this world you ramble, as through this world you roam
You'll never see an outlaw drive a family from its home..."

[JDPriestly]

162. If you buy the insurance you pay lower taxes. That is what is being

referred to as a mandate.

If you buy a house and pay interest to a private lender, you get a tax deduction. That's the way the tax system works.

If you invest in solar panels for your house and buy them from a private company, you get a tax deduction in some states. You get tax deductions if you pay over a certain percentage of your income for health care costs. There are all sorts of incentives in the tax system to get you to do things.

This is just the lower court. The decision could be overturned.

[Cherchez la Femme]

180. Thanks

for the answer to my question way down thread
...I just didn't have enough time to read through the entire thread to see if my question was addressed :hi:

[T Wolf]

205. God damned problem is that, in the warped reality of corporate Amerika, health care IS COMMERCE too.

[harmonicon]

215. +1 (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

8. The insurance you're required by law to have is liability

It's for damage you cause to others and is a condition of the driving privilege. You choose to drive but you don't choose to be alive.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. You're not pro choice?!?!

:)

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Not after birth!

:)

[pokercat999]

134. That my friend, is the most profound time to be pro-choice...nt

[bobbolink]

25. With the shredding of the safety net, many of us won't *have* the choice to be alive.

[abelenkpe]

55. But if you don't buy health insurance

get sick and go to hospital someone else covers the cost. (For example in college a friend of mine with no insurance had appendicitis went to Cedars with no insurance and had his appendix out. He never paid any money for that as he had no insurance, no job, nothing. Another friend had lost her job and her daughter had an ear infection. She went to emergency room and they were treated. Same deal. Think maybe some charity picked up her tab but still...) Same if you drive w/o insurance and get in a accident. More so even. Can't stop people's health from failing or getting sick.

Anyway, those making the argument for mandated insurance used car insurance as an example.

Whatever, it was just some POS GOP judge who won't have the final say anyway. It won't change much except to increase the calls for single payer.

[Bette Noir]

71. When Medically Indigent Adults get hospital care, either the County picks up the tab,

or the hospital absorbs the loss. In the first case, it's local taxes that pay, or grants from the State or the Feds to the County. In the second, the hospital raises everyone's rates to cover the services they don't get reimbursed for.

At least that's the way it works in California.

[tpsbmam]

152. You're kidding, right?

Do you have any idea how many people in this country die each year because they can't get medical treatment? Get cancer, just go to the hospital for treatment and someone somewhere will pick up the cost?

Wrong. In this country, with no health insurance and no means to pay for treatment, get cancer and too fucking bad....you gonna die.

one article among LOTS of information out there to educate you.

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.

more at link

[Enthusiast]

194. "you gonna die" Exactly!

Return to the 19th century! Just fucking wonderful.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. You don't have to buy car insurance.

You can SELF INSURE. (many people do!)

You just have to have enough money to put into an escrow account and designate it accordingly.

[fasttense]

174. Not all states allow for an escrow in lieu of car insurance.

But do you think you can afford an escrow account on minimum wage?

How about escrow accounts for health insurance? How much money would you have to put aside for a heart transplant? I bet you can't do it on minimum wage.

The whole game is rigged in favor of the uber rich oligarchy. I surprised We The People allow them to rule us so completely.

[Bonhomme Richard]

14. You don't have to buy car insurance but the State can tell you....

that you can't drive it on the roads.

[humbled_opinion]

130. I hate the car insurance analogy... because its B.S.

Of course the government can tell you you must purchase car insurance in order to operate a vehicle on public roads, in fact not mandating it would be dereliction of its duty to protect life, liberty and property..... OTOH.... simply living and breathing in the USA is not justification for congress to mandate that I by my mere existence must purchase, whether employed or not, an insurance protection from a private corporation. This sets a very terrible precedent that could give the government carte blanche over our very lives.... I have enough of a civil libertarian streak in me to reject that potential nightmare scenario... We would also be wise to entertain the idea that whatever laws we establish and to whatever good and noble cause we empower government to manage there may come a time when the good and just may not be in political power and then someone could use that type of power and control to oppress.... We saw how one man used the government to over-reach its authority, torture, spy, coerce, launch an aggressive campaign of war, because some idiots hijacked planes and killed Americans.....

[tracy_winzer01]

21. good question

good question

[WinkyDink]

58. No. It's a completely illogical question.

[Jakes Progress]

121. No. It's not. It's an old ploy

used to put lipstick on this pig of a health reform plan.

See several of the above to see this silly argument tossed aside like used tissue (or our rights).

[oldhippie]

49. In many states you are not required to buy car insurance ......

You can post a bond instead.

[DeSwiss]

107. Just check and see how much a state bond is. n/t

[AllyCat]

110. You can choose not to buy a car. You cannot chose not to get sick.

This is a completely erroneous argument.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Lousy polituics and vulnerable law

Back down on what the people wanted and impose what they opposed instead.

[David Zephyr]

115. Pretty much the history of the whole sordid episode.

Tom, we are exactly back to where we were in 2008 with regards to healthcare. What a disaster.

[dgibby]

6. How could mandated insurance be constitutional?

I've been saying this since it was first proposed. It sets a terrible precedent. If you can be mandated to buy one private service, why not others? Where would it end?

If the Admin and the Dems had framed this as Medicare for all, then the repubs wouldn't have been to reframe it as Obama Care. It would have had a lot more support, and a mandate wouldn't have been necessary.

Of course, it would have pissed off the PTB, but a whole lot of people would be alive today if they'd done it right the first time.

The stupid-it burns!

[Recursion]

27. Because if you don't get insurance I have to pay for your ER visit

So I do have an interest in seeing that you have some.

[leftstreet]

29. By this reasoning, should I have to pay for your SS or Medicare?

:popcorn:

[Recursion]

39. Yes, it's a lot like that

Which is why contributions to those (in 99% of cases) are mandatory, too.

[leftstreet]

50. Private, for profit corporations are selling SS and Medicare?!

That's news to me

[Recursion]

60. Making hundreds of millions processing the claims

It's how Ross Perot got rich, and how IBM became the biggest company in the world at the time. So actually that's a little worse, because I don't get to choose which company benefits from my SS and Medicare participation, but I do get to choose which insurance company does.

[closeupready]

32. Sounds good, but that's not how the US Constitution works.

n/t

[WinkyDink]

59. Yes, that is very true. But nothing to do with Constitutionality.

[Recursion]

61. Well, several courts disagree

The cases that haven't thrown it out made that the basis of the judgment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Car insurance

That's your precedent and it will be the precedent cited.

Regardless PO was the logical way to go, but not for the political class.

[onpatrol98]

132. Agreed!

The part that continued to baffle me is "How" could a constitutional law professor think "mandated" health insurance was a good idea?

The odd part about was...how comfortable everyone was with saying..."see, those healthy people and young people would be forced to buy into an insurance plan they wouldn't use"

It sounded more like a life insurance scam than a health care plan.

I was skeptical about a public option, but now I see it was definitely a more rational idea than forcing individuals to buy a product.

[ProudDad]

145. Nope...

It's like mandating you to purchase a broken toaster in order to buy a loaf of bread...

(I know, it's not a great metaphor but I just wanted to equate USAmerican for-profit "health insurance" to a broken toaster)

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. Zeke Emmanuel had a lot to do with this, did he not?

I mean the overall "health INSURANCE reform" plan? I know brother Rahm left the White House but his miserable brother is still up there protecting the for-profit insurance companies.

bytheway, I HIGHLY recommend that everyone read "Deadly Spin" by insurance industry whistleblower Wendell Potter. It tells every detail of how this "health INSURANCE reform" debacle happened. It's maddening.

I agree with you David. Obama pissed away a primo opportunity to FINALLY reform health CARE in this country. Instead, what he came up with was an "insurance industry protection program".

[David Zephyr]

67. Yes.

I guess the "silver lining" in all of this is that if we ever get back to expanding health care in the future it will have probably have to be done by expanding Medicare which is what Dennis Kucinich championed from the beginning: Medicare for all. Thanks, ProfessionalLeftist (great name, by the way, in light of all that is going on.)

[Cleita]

11. I agree. We know that this health bill was built

like a house of cards and it's sooo easy to blow it over.

[EndElectoral]

13. It will most likely be overthrown. Single Payer would not have.

[Cherchez la Femme]

187. And ya know what?

the huge rise in Health Insurance premiums will never come down


Did our Constitutional professor/scholar President ever realize that?
Isn't he supposed to be so smart, especially as an attorney -- covering every angle or possibility?

It's like giving Corporations --and corporations who majorly financed his campaign-- either a win-win present or even better a double dipping gift if the bill is tweaked enough to go through

[stray cat]

16. Especially if it never exists! Hillary's plan never got overthrown in court either

[David Zephyr]

24. I, along with most of The Left, never supported Hillary's concept.

It's one of the reasons I supported Obama. He campaigned AGAINST mandating the purchase of insurance, but then he campaigned on a lot of things, didn't he?

He promised one thing and then adopted Hillary's mandated insurance plan.

This is so tiring that everything dissolves down to the sophomoric Hillary vs. Obama shit.

My OP is about a Public Option and Single Payer Healthcare.

[Cherchez la Femme]

188. What 'versus'?

Heck, they're practically the same!

[Gaedel]

82. Hillary's 1993 plan truly sucked.

Expansion of medicare for all.

Medicare to be off budget.

Use a new VAT to pay for Medicare as most European countries do.

Medicare not part of the budget process. It has its own budget and each year congress can tinker with the beneifts and taxes to keep it from running a surplus or a deficit.

[Tatiana]

17. What kills me is the hypocrisy. Hillary also wanted mandated coverage and Obama was against it.

Possibly because of concerns regarding the constitutionality of the mandate provision.

But then he tosses out the House bill that passed and allows the corporations to dictate a more profitable version (for themselves).

Then the President chastises us for being upset that the public option was negotiated away in a back door "compromise."

I hate the way this administration "negotiates." We need a real FDR or even an LBJ. This economy needed a new New Deal or a new Great Society program. Instead we have this... change that is pretty much the same as what you had a couple of years ago, if not worse.

[tracy_winzer01]

22. wow

they just can't make up their minds. sad

[JDPriestly]

163. John Edwards proposed making Medicare available as a public option

I'm not sure whether he was going to start by lowering the Medicare age gradually or just offer a buy-in. But this was John Edwards' idea. Obama was me too on this one. We can see how sincere Obama was. :sarcasm:

Obama copied a lot of John Edwards' stances and then dropped him once he got in office. Crying shame that things turned out as they did.

[closeupready]

18. Completely agree.

Sort of like makes you wonder if they knew this was going to happen all along.

[Divernan]

26. This was a win-win for Big Health Insurance.

If people were mandated to buy health insurance, the companies profit. Witness all the waivers Obama's administration gave to insurance companies because it would be too costly for them to comply with the new law.

If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the companies can continue to pick and choose whom they'll allow to buy policies.

[Cherchez la Femme]

189. Oh yes

I must amend my second-to-last post to 'win-win-win'.
Thanks!

[Divernan]

23. "Simply appalling" is a kind description of this fiasco.

If this president had not been a law professor & self-proclaimed constitutional law scholar, I could understand him having the wool pulled over his eyes by some slick talking Big Insurance lobbyists. There is no excuse for this wasted effort and failure.

[WiffenPoof]

28. What Really Disturbs Me...

...is that when the "mandatory payment" fails to pass the courts...this will be seen as a major defeat for our President.

-PLA

[closeupready]

31. Honestly, when you aim for mediocrity, complete failure is often what you get.

Aim high, and sometimes you get something you can live with. But, too late for that. He's not going to spend another moment on health care reform.

[Bette Noir]

76. That's a great line! I'm going to steal it.

[snagglepuss]

94. I second that. nt

[snagglepuss]

96. Great line. That's bumper sticker material :) nt

[closeupready]

209. My fee is 10%.

:rofl:

[Cherchez la Femme]

190. Your subject line is a great quote!

[lumberjack_jeff]

211. Because it is. n/t

[Still a Democrat]

30. Wouldn't pass Congress, either

Just sayin'.

[Dawgs]

33. It DID pass in the House.

How do you know it couldn't get 50 votes (at the time) in the Senate? Do you know something we don't?

[Still a Democrat]

34. Laughable

It would get nowhere near the 60 votes needed for cloture.

[Dawgs]

38. It didn't need 60 votes. HCR was passed through reconciliation, which only needed 50 votes.

Still laughable?

[Still a Democrat]

41. My bad

but there weren't 50 votes for a public option.

[Dawgs]

44. How would you know if they didn't have 50 votes?

Do you know something the rest of us don't?

[Ikonoklast]

202. Harry Reid can count.

In Congress, the leaders and whips count their votes first, before any vote is ever taken on the floor.

Especially the big issues.

You never proceed to the floor without already knowing where you stand, unless you want to be made a fool of.

You never hold a vote if you are unsure of the numbers.

The votes were never there, and Harry Reid knew it, and told the president this fact.

[Dawgs]

206. Proof, or are you just making shit up?

:shrug:

[Dawgs]

45. Self delete. n/t

[David Zephyr]

48. This is what I wrote in the OP.

President Obama pissed away a moment in history that will not come again for our generation to provide health care, Medicare for all, or even an incremental expansion of Medicare to children and those 55 and older (which would have passed the Senate and the House, along with provisions for pre-existing conditions).

[eomer]

54. What's your basis for the claim that we didn't have 50 votes?

There were indications at the time that we might:
http://www.truth-out.org/we-have-51-senate-votes-public-option-adam-green-ed-schultz57665

And even if we were in fact a couple of votes short, a couple of votes can often be gained if the President and Congressional leadership pull all the stops out. They have considerable leverage if they choose to use it.

[Cherchez la Femme]

196. As I said before

and looks like I'll have to say again and again and again

Is he or is he not the President of the United States and the most influential and important member of the Democratic Party?

there was no arm-twisting,
there was no use of the bully pulpit
there were no meetings,
there was not even basic camaraderie with Democratic Congresspeople -- they were locked out of discussions!

Heck, he wasn't even NICE to Democrats to the Left of him -- which isn't saying much as he's so very far Right.
Why the fuck do you think at least one (just that we know of) Democratic legislator was so disgusted by their treatment courtesy of Obama s/he voiced probably what most, other than Lieberman (who was booted out of the Party) et. al., were thinking:
"Fuck the President".

Jeebus, if that doesn't tell you there are serious problems on Capitol Hill, I don't know WHAT will!


Obama, if he even talked to any Democrats about the Health Insurance Bill,
oops I mean Health CARE -- yeah, right :rofl:

picked some of the most conservative, Blue Dog, negative and reactionary "Democrats", i.e. DINO;s
he could find -- and chose precious few of them;
then he chose the most radical and again; the most conservative, negative and reactionary Repukes for his darling "Bipartisanship" Committees.
When he meets with them, does he wear a sign on his back saying "Kick me"? :puke:

How the President responds to the Republicans demand to jump is to immediately say: 'Yes sir, right away. How high?' and after that then drop prone on the floor so they could use them as a doormat.

Obama either has a non-Democratic agenda or he is a masochist.


...But it's all, so I understand, a game of chess in at least 11 dimensions and who knows how many levels per dimension? We're told not to believe our own lying eyes because it's something we fucking retarded peons will NEVER be able to comprehend. :eyes:

--but as we've been told here time and time again, complete with nice graphics; Obama sez:
"Chill the fuck out, I got this"

Maybe he does -- but it sure appears, time and again, that what he has is NOT We, The People's back
nor does he have the welfare and prosperity of We, The People

just big business. Corporations. THEY deserve a bail-out ya know. We, The People can go into foreclosure due to the predatory Corporations and one wonders where is THEIR bail-out?

I'll tell ya: to all events and purposes, it's nonexistent.

With such a Democratic President,
seriously,
who the hell needs a Republican one? Prior to Obama's precedents, even the Repuglicans wouldn't have tried half of what he's done.

But from this presidency forward, heck:

OPEN SEASON
especially on the poor, the Dirty Hippie Libruls and even the Middle Class
...what remnant is left of it!

[Bluebear]

161. I agree. Laughable.

Your reasoning, not the post.

[treestar]

37. unknown

And irrelevant until it becomes law

[PurityOfEssence]

43. The altar of private enterprise

Thou shalt do NOTHING outside of non-governmental commerce.

Well, that really worked out, didn't it?

"Promote the General Welfare" is literally in the preamble of the Constitution as part of the description of what the government's supposed to do.

Quite frankly, he's a compensation president; the only way one can find out what he really IS is to stack up all the things he isn't: he's not a candy-assed peacenik, he's not a big-government liberal, he's not a secularist, he's not "partisan", he's not a gay-enabler, he's not an environmental "extremist" and he's not particularly pro-regulation.

Who, if anyone, IS this guy? Does HE even know? Does that even matter to him so long as he's lauded as the font of all that's good and whatever AND gets re-elected?

We actually deserve this: we elected a person instead of a leader of a movement with specific policy aims. We bought into fluffy vagueness and blithe homilies of a Pied Piper who we were enthusiastically swept into turning off our logic gateways to surf pure emotional frenzy.

This Francis of Assisi, dove-accompanied horseshit shows itself for what it is: the Emperor's new halo.

The next few weeks will prove his mettle once and for all, and it's not a foregone result: he needs to realize that there's no turning back, and he has to call the enemy the enemy and fight every inch of the way. He needs to vilify them and bar no holds. It's a big leap, but he's a smart guy.

Sadly, the problem with that last bit of wistful longing is that it's premised upon his being anything but a rather right-of-center ultramoderate corporatist. I'm caught in the fantasy musings of modern American politics, too: seemingly NOBODY posits any scenarios that make any realistic sense at all, so I just want to get in step with the rabble.

[David Zephyr]

68. And this altar had more than a sacrifice.

As always, you sum it up.

[NoodleyAppendage]

46. The Health Care Debacle is a PRIME EXAMPLE of political expediency over true leadership. n/t

J

[Pacifist Patriot]

208. +1

It's been a long time since I've experienced true leadership. I'm not sure I even remember what it feels like anymore.

[spanone]

47. it's one case.....Court Upholds Key Provisions of Health Care Bill - Thursday, 07 Oct 2010

the media didn't jump on this quite the same way as they did today

Published : Thursday, 07 Oct 2010, 6:11 PM EDT

(NewsCore) - A federal judge in Detroit shot down, in an opinion released Thursday, a challenge to the health care reform legislation that was passed by Congress in March.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh rejected the argument, brought by a Michigan legal group and several individuals, that Congress had exceeded its authority when it passed national health care legislation and dismissed the claim that the provision requiring individuals to have insurance by 2014 amounts to an unconstitutional tax.

The plaintiffs attempted to argue that Congress' powers to regulate commerce did not extend to health care because the new rules amounted to an attempt to regulate inactivity, by penalizing those who refuse to participate.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/court-upholds-key-provisions-of-health-care-bill-dpgonc-20101007-gc_10005707

[David Zephyr]

51. The funding vehicle of the bill has been ripped out.

It's finished.

[spanone]

53. how's that? what funding vehicle?

Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.

[BzaDem]

74. Not one penny of a "funding vehicle" has been ripped out, and he didn't even issue an injunction.

His ruling will be stayed (to the extent it means anything) and no one will notice.

[unblock]

52. i actually think the supremos will side with obama on this one.

not because they like obama but because i think they (the majority, or at least the 4 other than the malleable kennedy) are basically 18th century tories if not outright fascists and they like the idea of government intervention when it's intervening on the side of propping up big business.

[fascisthunter]

98. this is what I think too

[grahamhgreen]

104. I hate to agree, but yes, anything to promote their fascist view of the world.

[shimmergal]

159. But there's no love lost between

the Four and Obama. Especially after he criticize their ruling on the Citizens United case.

They might just decide against the mandate to see Obama's pet project unravel.

[grahamhgreen]

186. One can only hope so!

[Lorien]

57. Hey, didn't the Obama faithful promise to help us FIGHT for a Public Option

If we supported their beloved's HCR plan? What ever happened to all of those who said "just pass the bill, THEN we'll GET TO WORK on pushing for a Public Option"!

Lies and more lies!

[laughingliberal]

139. Yeah, but I was pretty sure all that would disappear once the bill passed. nt

[Recursion]

62. Then again, a public option without dedicated revenue is an appallingly stupid idea

And I have no idea why so many of my fellow-travelers have staked their belief in the cause on essentially replicating Medicaid, the worst of all the available models of health care payment.

[eomer]

63. The reason you have no idea why that's true is because it isn't true.

It's not Medicaid that so many of your fellow travelers want to replicate, it's Medicare.

[Recursion]

64. Nope. Funded out of a combination of general revenue and premiums

That's Medicaid, not Medicare. A public "option" without a universal dedicated revenue source would be a disaster, which is why hospitals were so against it (even the ones that were for single payer). They're already losing money on Medicaid and they can see the writing on the wall about this one.

[eomer]

179. What I've seen most people advocating here is literally "let people buy into Medicare".

So that's Medicare, not Medicaid.

[Hoyt]

118. You'd still be "mandated" to pay for Medicare, through taxes or direct premiums.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like the option. But it will still cost us, and at best be 20% or so cheaper than most private policies unless fundamental changes are made to the health care system and what we expect from it. Again, I'd like to have that option. And when there are problems, I'd rather gripe at government officials than some CEO trying to earn his obscene bonus. I think we'll have a public option in the not too distant future, even the so-called Catfood Commission recommends that.

[izzybeans]

66. You don't think a Republican judge with financial ties to party operatives would invent a reason?

Nah, I'm sure he would have given it a fair shake. :sarcasm:

[on point]

69. No mandate without the public option. That was a simple no brainer.

[20score]

70. Absolutely correct. And this tax deal is worse, morally and for the country's future than the

mandate with no public option.

[GOPBasher]

72. I generally agree with what you're saying, but it wasn't Obama who "pissed away" the moment,

it was Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson, and perhaps another 1 or 2 other senators. I don't understand how one can lay this on Obama. Blame it on the 60-vote bullshit, and blame it on those senators, but what could Obama do?

[20score]

77. Reality dictates that Obama takes the blame. He sold out the public option long before the debate

was over.

What if the White House put half as much energy and political pressure into selling the public option as they have into selling this tax deal?

I don't like this reality, but it can't and shouldn't be denied.

[truedelphi]

79. + 1. n/t

[pokercat999]

137. Well let's see: He could have grabbed them by the neck and

smashed their head into the wall, he could have promised to veto ANY f---ing thing they wanted passed for the next 3 to 7 years, he could have promised to spend a million dollars of his own money and raise another million or two for any opponent in their next race or he could have told them he'd have the CIA crash their plane, but he just rolled over with his f---ing paws in the air like the dog he is and licked their balls.

[Caretha]

195. The didn't need 60 - they needed 50 votes n/t

[BzaDem]

73. I hate to break it to you, but a public option absolutely cannot survive without a mandate under

any circumstances.

If you have no mandate, no one buys into the public option until they are sick. That means premiums for the public option spike to thousands per month.

Don't worry though, the mandate isn't going anywhere. The judge made many objective errors in his opinion that even right wingers are complaining about. It will be reversed by the 4th circuit.

[WillyT]

78. That May Be True, But... Will It Survive The Supreme Court ???

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

80. I think it will. But if it won't, a public option is dead too, since as I said, a public option

without a mandate wouldn't work.

[David Zephyr]

84. Who informed you that?

There were votes in the committee and the Senate for an expansion of Medicare to those 55 and older and to children along with including those with pre-existing conditions.

And it passed the House of Representatives.

[BzaDem]

87. My point is that without a mandate, premiums for the public option would be thousands/month

and would be unaffordable for anyone but the richest of the rich.

[David Zephyr]

88. Simply not true.

That's an opinion not based on fact. The House Bill was all paid for and did not create the false situation you infer.

It just isn't so.

[BzaDem]

91. Guess what? The House bill had a mandate. You can continue to deny reality all you want,

but your denial of reality doesn't change reality.

New York bans price discrimination but has no mandate. Before this state of affairs, they had over 700k individual market policies. Now? They have about 30k, because no one can afford insurance. Again, you being in denial doesn't change the actual facts of the situation.

[reformist2]

105. I don't think so - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy will kill it.

Maybe more...

[20score]

81. I don't understand why the PO wouldn't survive without a mandate. That was the original plan.

How would it be any different than normal insurance? There doesn't seem to be millions of people dropping their insurance until they get sick. Most people in the middle class would just buy into Medicare, because it would be cheaper and better.

You might be right about it being shot down, but this will hardly be the last challenge.

No matter what happens, it would have been better to do the right thing and really fix our health care system. Maybe with some kind public option.

[BzaDem]

83. My point is that a Medicare buy-in WOULDN'T be cheaper if there were no mandate. It would be

thousands of dollars per month.

Everyone would wait until they got sick to start buying health insurance (healthy people would not get insurance). Therefore, premiums would have to cover a much sicker risk pool, and would explode. That would cause even more healthy people to leave the system, causing even higher premiums. Premiums would eventually be unaffordable to anyone but the very rich -- IN MEDICARE (or whatever public option there is).

To put it another way, if you are insuring two people, one very sick and one not sick, and the total cost of care is 1000/month for both, the insurance company can charge 500 for each. That means the healthy person pays 500 even though he is healthy, and therefore the sick person only pays 500 even though he is consuming 1000 for care.

But if the healthy person isn't forced to pay 500, then the only person left is the sick person. So the sick person pays 1000 -- the full cost of his care in this hypothetical.

Without a mandate, you cannot fix that problem.

[20score]

86. I understand the added cost if only sick people are insured.

I just reject the premise that your scenario is what would play out. Since that is not happening in the insurance world now, I don't see how someone can leap to the conclusion that it would happen with a different type of insurance.

Only the the insurer would change, nothing else. And that change would have no effect on the actions of people.

[BzaDem]

90. But right now, there is no federal law banning price discrimination.

So you can't really compare now (when insurers can charge sick people 100 times a healthy person) to community rating but no mandate (where everyone has to pay the same, and NO healthy person has ANY incentive to get insurance).

There are a few states that ban discrimination without a mandate. New York is an example. Before they banned discrimination, they had about 700 thousand policies on the individual market. Now, they have about 30k. That's like a 25 fold drop, because prices are unaffordable. Only people in the employer market (not affected by the regulations on the individual market) can get insurance.

[20score]

93. One sentence in a bill for the public option would fix any objection

you have come up with.

[BzaDem]

95. No, it wouldn't. What's the use of a public option if premiums cost thousands per month

because no one healthy buys into it?

[20score]

99. I've already addressed that. I still reject your premise as I think it is based on a fallacy. One

you created.

I'll just agree to disagree.

[BzaDem]

100. I didn't create it: this "falacy" currently exists in the New York State individual market. n/t

[Hoyt]

148. Many folks buy now because they know once they get sick, no insurer will cover them.

In 2014, insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions -- including Medicare if it were a public option. So, there will be no "security" incentive for purchasing insurance until you really need it the next day. You and I might purchase it anyway (assuming we have the funds), but a lot of folks won't or just can't. Point is, a mandate is all but required or a significant percentage of people will wait -- increasing premiums for those who do purchase.

Right now, you don't have to take Medicare Part B if you don't want it. But, if you suddenly decide you want it (like when you get really sick), you have to wait until the annual open enrollment period and usually pay a higher premium. There are some exceptions if you are employed and take your employer's insurance over Medicare Part B when you become eligible (which obviously saves "Medicare" money).

[laughingliberal]

154. And, yet, New York is not the most expensive premiums in the country. MA is the highest.

MA, with mandated insurance, now has the highest premiums in the country.

Mandatory health insurance has not produced lower premiums or health care budget savings in Massachusetts, the laboratory for the experiment. Massachusetts recently adopted strong premium regulation to give consumers relief from the highest health insurance rates in America.

New York, which has a take-all-comers law, is often cited as the disastrous consequence of the failure to enact mandatory purchases. But the empire state also is embarking on tough premium regulation to deal with its problems -- which still rank it lower than Massachusetts in premium prices. Premium regulation is the key.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/white-house-and-progressi_b_796006.html

[David Zephyr]

85. You are correct.

It would have survived without a mandate. Even Obama campaigned on this...until...well, you know the rest.

[grahamhgreen]

103. 1)Do you have any data to support this? 2) Taxing people is OK (public plan); tax by private

companies is fascism (mandate).

[BzaDem]

112. Yes. New York State.

In New York State, they banned price discrimination but had no mandate. Before they did this, they had over 700k individual market policies issued. Eventually, it went down to 30k, because no one can afford it. That's what happens when you let healthy people opt out of paying for health insurance.

[grahamhgreen]

185. As I recall, the number of individual policies decreased, but the number of individuals

covered by insurance increased, due to group plans and Medicaid.

On top of that, the fact that no one can afford it is proof that we need Medicare for All, or at minimum, a public option, also health insurance for a profit should be banned.

[David Zephyr]

113. It is fascism.

In most of the world, making profit delivering healthcare is illegal when there is no public option/single payer also available.

Creating a law to force Americans to purchase a corporate product is a serious blow to liberty.

I opposed this nonsense from the first mention of it as the public option and single payer and Medicare for all options were tabled.

Now, President Obama has nothing, zero, zip to show for that entire first year.

Pretty stark.

grahamgreen thanks for your comments. Also, I like then name you took here, too. :)

[laughingliberal]

140. +1000 nt

[onpatrol98]

135. Public Option...funded like Medicaid and Medicare

I don't understand. As individuals, we don't have a mandate to purchase medicaid or medicare from insurance companies. Why would we need a mandate for the public option. I'm not being snippy. I'm just wondering if I'm oversimplifying.

[WillyT]

75. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[2Design]

92. they threw us under the bus then and are doing it again -

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

97. It didn't make sense mandating insurance. We want health care, not ins

maybe next pres and congress will get it right, if there's anything left of our country,
that is.

[Starry Messenger]

101. Thank you David.

This has all been such a mare's nest, it's easy to lose sight of the simple basics.

[grahamhgreen]

102. Very well said.

[DeSwiss]

106. EXACTLY!!!

Just like Obama said when he was bitching and complaining about us LIBRULS: "It's the public option all over again." -- And again, and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Because it's the right thing to do.

- But it was hard to do. Which is why you abandoned it so quickly.....

K&R

[Gman]

108. Nice rant. Only one problem with it

two other judges ruled it's constitutional.

[pnwmom]

109. Wrong. A Rethug judge could overthrow anything.

As it is, this Rethug judge will probably be overruled by SCOTUS, since he failed to take SCALIA's opinions into account -- opinions which support this law.

[David Zephyr]

114. pwmom, it won't stand up with the SCOTUS.

It's dead and the lawsuit went right to the weakest point: the mandates.

It's finished.

[Skittles]

133. it was always a big giant turd circling the bowl

and indeed it will be flushed

[LostInAnomie]

111. The Public Option would have died a much earlier death...

... in the Senate.

[Cherchez la Femme]

125. With over 70% of the populace desiring it?

Heck, even the Republicans would have listened to well over 2/3rd's of their constituency

Fat checks from lobbyists are great, but if one doesn't get reelected then all checks stop.


They may be utterly corrupt, but when it comes to their self-preservation they're certainly not stupid!

[Occam Bandage]

116. Single payer never had a chance to get through the Senate.

Obama threw all his weight behind the public option and it still couldn't break through Republican/conservadem obstruction. And as for claiming we should have focused on jobs and housing? Liberals wanted health-care reform. That was him listening to us. Fat lot of good it did him.

[TheKentuckian]

172. No he didn't. He had already long ago traded it away in deals with "stakeholders".

In any event, all his weight appears to be a few token mentions, usually associated with the word "sliver".

Hell, to tell you the truth up until today I'd at least say if presented with a bill with a public option, he'd sign it but I'm closer to believing he worked with Baucus, Snowe, and Lieberman to stall and pull away the ball at the last moment until the "stakeholder" objections had been eliminated or twisted into cruel mockeries of the fixes that were supposed to be included.

Seems more like there would be no bill till it was just right.

[Enthusiast]

198. "Obama threw all his weight behind the public option"

Funny, I never noticed that at the time. All his weight? Maybe you can provide us with some YouTube links that show Obama arguing passionately for the public option.

[Cherchez la Femme]

117. Ramen!

It's not forcing U.S. citizens to HAVE TO purchase any item from a corporation! It's a no brainer.

--I mean no offense by that last sentence, nor is it 'said' in a snotty tone, what I mean is it's clearly obvious.

[David Zephyr]

122. Not snotty and I agree with you.

:)

[Cherchez la Femme]

129. Thanks *smile*

One thing I was wondering if you, David, or anyone else can answer for me:

why hasn't/isn't mandated Automobile Insurance also been ruled unconstitutional?
It is bought from private, for-profit corporations and it is Federal -- i.e. nationwide, a law in every state, is it not?

I know there is something different about it, but for the life of me I cannot figure it out...

[Cherchez la Femme]

175. To wit: A For-Profit Corporation

& on top of a For-Profit Corporations, one that profits off of denying as much as possible basic necessities of human life.

Yea I know, Department of Redundancy Department
but just wanted to be perfectly clear...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. Actually, go further than that. Single payer wouldn't be thrown out, either.

While the judge agrees that it is the government's job to see to the "general welfare" of the people, he is suggesting that they cannot mandate buying *PRIVATE* insurance. But what about *PUBLIC* insurance?

Would the Public Option apply to your argument, since the public option allows consumers to "go shopping" for the best *public* or *private* insurance package? As long as the private industry is involved, there's an issue. However, with single payer, it's not, according to this judge's logic.

[David Zephyr]

123. I'll go further with you, too.

You are right.

The concept of a public option where it was an alternative to for-profit healthcare -- as long as it was optional, not mandated was not a bad idea. It was Obama's campaign's promise.

Of course, anyone who knows me here knows I support single payer, Medicare for all, but we could have gotten an optional public option, or extended Medicare to 55 and older and to cover all kids and those with pre-existing conditions. Instead, we are now back to 2008 all over again.

[Cherchez la Femme]

127. Heck

it'd be like the SCOTUS saying that beneficial programs for the good of the populace such as WIC, Head Start, etc. are unconstitutional! Even Roberts, Thomas, Scalia &/or Alito wouldn't go THAT far!


And what is incomprehensible is that our President --a Constitutional scholar & a Harvard professor TEACHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
for TEN YEARS
couldn't anticipate this very obvious ruling!





I wouldn't capitalize if I knew how to make font bigger... sorry.

[laughingliberal]

144. I'm wondering if a public option was available as a choice for everyone if that would fix it.

IOW, in the versions of the PO that passed, only certain people would even be allowed to choose it. If it was available as a choice to everyone and private insurance was also available, I'm thinking that might hold up.

Of course, the hospital and insurance industries were dead set against it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

212. That's actually a good point

If offering people a choice between a public health insurance plan and a private one is unconstitutional, then all manner of social security privatization would be equally unconstitutional.

If this bill is thrown out, it might be for the best if the courts constrain the political options. A) status quo or b) single payer.

[davidwparker]

120. Right. Because dropping the age limit of Medicare for

all would not have been problematic.

Would we have money for doing that now that Bush's tax cuts for billionaires has been extended?

[Rethuglican]

136. You know, that's a good question.

According to money.cnn.com the following numbers pop out:

"Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families."

So, if you take $81.5 billion for two years (for those over $250k/yr), or roughly $41B per year, how much Medicare can you buy.

I did a back of the envelope calculation on Medicare a few months ago and it came to about $1k/month/person. I expect it actually costs a bit more than that since there's probably a few hidden government subsidies, but I'll stick to the number. Obviously, that $12k/yr then. $41B/$12k is about 3.5M people for a year. I think there's about 2M people per year of age for folks in their 60's, so I guess you could buy about 2 years worth of Medicare (ie. start it at age 63.3 or something). YMMV of course.

[Cherchez la Femme]

178. I didn't see the OP

mention dropping the age limit
(but I'm seriously buzzed on java and am not reading as well zs I usually do, so it *may* be there
--but like I said, I sure didn't see it.

Now isn't that a ridiculous question?
in the long run we won't even have enough to cover Social Security as it is, which means more elderly receiving Medicare -- now HOW can putting increased stressors on Medicare possibly even be considered by any sane, logical person as an option??

And of course you know there won't be money as there won't be enough in a couple decades for people if things stay exactly as they are now...


Tell me, where, exactly, does the idea of that 'option' come from?
Please tell, because it sounds to me, as it is, just like an agenda-driven talking point...

[davidwparker]

236. because

when you lower the age limit for Medicare then this brings in more than just the aged, it also brings in the healthier people who have no insurance. When I mentioned dropping the Medicare limit, I had assumed those on this board would have recognized it as shorthand of an easier way of universal healthcare. And, by doing so, giving people options, it does give other providers competition, which they do not have now.

And, SS is safe until 2040 +/-. Or, it was, until Obama's deal with the 'cons.

[humbled_opinion]

124. Obviously the people with brains knew that mandates

could never stand a constitutional muster, the hope, as I remember it was, that once we get the damn thing approved we get this far and then after the mandates were challenged in court by the naysayers then Congress went back and fixed it with a single payer or medicare type provision. They would have turned it into a political liability for people to vote against the public option at that point, the bottom line would be that Congress would approve taking the assigned tax out and the employer contribution out at the point of payroll... just like medicare is today....

Remember this was the begining not the end the only people that wanted an end were the say no cons...

My hope is that This may still happen in the Senate as long as Democrats hold a steady line and don't buckle but who knows anymore, up is down, left is right.... I am getting quickly lost in these stupid political games.

[David Zephyr]

142. Suckered? Possibly.

He looks like a fool now. Two years down the drain and lost Congress.

[Canuckistanian]

126. "All roads lead to single-payer"

That's what I heard someone say today. The current health care system is unsustainable. Something's gonna break, some day.

So what's next? The public option? Of course! And of course, it won't be perfect. So changes will be mandated and it will become POPULAR. Because the PROFIT MOTIVE will be gone. Finished.

SO popular, that people will start wondering - why not expand Medicare to children and those UNDER the threshold age?

Will this happen next year. Get serious. Next decade? Maybe.

I predict 20 years at least.

I leave this post with a a quote from Churchill:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after all other options have been exhausted"

[David Zephyr]

143. Except we won't have a chance like we had in 2009 again in this generation.

The campaign finance ruling by the SCOTUS, the consolidation of the media, and...well, I could go on and on, but the transnationals own this country now and they made a fool out of Obama. At least, he gets to live in the big house and enjoy the perks of playing President like George W. did.

George and Barack...they have a lot in common. Pawns.

[Canuckistanian]

149. That's true

The whole country was focussed on health care for those months. There was a healthy Congressional majority and a positive public opinion.

It coulda been different.

[savannah43]

128. Ask who owns SCOTUS? Corporate America.

The health insurance industry adores the mandate. Notice how the GOP claims to want to tweak Obamacare. The mandate will be the ONLY thing left. It is a multi-million dollar windfall for the insurance companies. More manipulation from D.C.

[stillwaiting]

183. I agree with you that the SC will not kill the mandate. They will deliver for Big Business.

It's what they do now in Newmerica.

[burnsei sensei]

131. It would be completely constitutional.

It would not be forcing commercial behavior.
It would not be regulating behavior in any way.
If there was a public option or single payer, the constitution would be satisfied.
Of course, don't tell Karen Ignagni and the AHIP that. They were the people who made the mandates in the first place.
Obama never should have accepted anything written by AHIP.
Single payer now.

[tomp]

138. you can't actually be asserting that the conservative majority of this court....

....will do the right thing, can you? it would seem to be much more of a sure thing that they will side with the insurance companies, since the only logic they know is, "if it serves the corporations, it's good."

[frazzled]

141. I'm sorry, but you seem not to have understood the public option

that was being proposed. There still would have been a mandate for individuals to purchase insurance. The exchanges would simply have provided the public option as one alternative for individuals to buy, alongside the various commercial products.

So the right-wing (or libertarian) objection to a mandate would not have changed, and this conservative judge would have ruled the same way. The public option was not the issue here, and would not have changed anything in this respect.

[ProudDad]

146. OK, California -- You're up!

Jerry and SB840!

[Raster]

147. Of course it wouldn't. But "we" had to put forth the minimal effort...

...to make sure it looked good on paper and could be used for the 2010 elections. And a shitload of good that did.

Healthcare for all. Period. In the form of a single-payer, government-managed plan that leaves the for-pay insurance vultures out of the equation.

[upi402]

150. Yep, but now they lost the majority we gave 'em with their centrism. n/t

[Zavulon]

153. Two thumbs up.

I never thought I'd cheer a court decision that went against Obama, but I sure did yesterday. I'm livid that he wasted so much time on such a shitty bill.

[David Zephyr]

165. The rest of the world looks at the U.S. healthcare racket as a criminal enterprise

It was a "shitty bill" Zavulon.

[caseymoz]

155. Mandating Americans to purchas a service or commodity should have stood up.

But I admit it wouldn't have passed the courts in this political environment with the conservative activist judges that we have. It was simply unwise to try to test a mandate in the courts right now.

This ruling alone is dangerous. In the Constitution, Congress has all powers "Necessary and proper" to it. As long as it doesn't step on the prerogatives of the other two branches, or on some section of the constitution, or on the rights enumerated or implied, Congress is supposed to be able to pass a law doing it. It was created to be the supreme branch of government, not the Executive Branch.

Now this ruling is going to be used to attack other things, like Social Security. I mean, mandating that the people buy annuities?

It was such a bad political move on Obama's part, though. If the Supreme Court doesn't knock this ruling down, through some miracle, Obama and the Republicans would have set the stage for a country where law is paralyzed but executive power is not.

And if it isn't knocked down, it actually means that Obama has not only wasted his first year, and one whole year of work for Congress, but he has done great harm in that time. He has given conservatives a weapon to dismantle any social program.

[orbitalman]

157. K & R

[Bluebear]

160. "We'll fix it later!!!"

:cry:

[David Zephyr]

166. Bingo.

Ponder this: we are right back to the same healthcare status that existed in 2008, only healthcare premiums have skyrocketed the last two years, so it's worse than in 2008.

[PhillySane]

200. More like We'll Kill It Later!

never had any intention of passing Healthcare Reform. Obama is Bush 3.0

[rhett o rick]

164. The mandate was a poison pill. Medicare Part B works fine w/o a mandate.

You have a choice of signing up or not, if you sign up late there is a big fine. Same could have been done with the HCR bill.

[Sherman A1]

168. Well,

There is that, but we never had the option of a public option.

[movingviolation]

169. I totally agree.

I don't want to be forced to give my hard earned money to bloated health insurance companies, god-damn-it!

Meez thinx we've been hosed, yet again.

I'm thinking that he could only fuck up this bad if that was in fact what he was trying to do in the first place. Placate us with sweet rhetoric all the while serving his corporate Wall St masters and their plan to screw us all.
:tinfoilhat:

[California Griz]

170. You don't understand the judges ruling.

Nothing has been overruled. This was a declarative ruling which means there is no remedy involved. Essentially the ruling is meaningless. If they want a remedy such as striking down portions of the law they must appeal it to a higher court.

[Norrin Radd]

171. kr

[TheKentuckian]

173. With the state of our government and the influence of the multi-national corporations

and the super wealthy, is it wise to allow such a precedent under any circumstances for any purpose?

Gives me shivers to think about the broad space for abuse if the government can assert such power when they are owned by people looking for every nickle they can't shake loose.

[xchrom]

181. recommend

[Ganja Ninja]

184. Once again the Democratic party is screwed up by their own conservative wing. n/t

[Enthusiast]

191. It should have been

a single payer goal from day one.

Every effort should have been geared toward single payer. And of course it probably wouldn't have passed. But every day we were without it would further illustrate to the American people just how badly we need it. And it would further illustrate just how misleading and dishonest the efforts to stop it were. Besides, single payer, or some Medicare part-e variation, is the only possible way to get a handle on health care costs in this nation. Having the discussion alone would have moved us far in that direction.

If the American people know anything it is that the insurance industry is the bad actor in the health care debate. Everyone knows it because we have all been victims of their greed. We could have destroyed the opposition in a REAL debate on health care. Instead we had the completely manufactured Teabagger town hall meeting screaming sessions. We all know this.

[Vinca]

193. On the front page of the Huffington Post right now there is a story

about Medicaid patients being denied life-saving treatments and a couple of paragraphs below that there is a story about tax cuts for the wealthy advancing in the Senate. We're one fucked up country. We need one health CARE plan for everyone, no exceptions, paid for by common funds. You shouldn't be dealt a death sentence because you are sick and poor. The health INSURANCE debate was a farce and it pisses me off that Obama seems to feel the box is checked, health care is done.

[orbitalman]

197. That would require thinking...beyond your nose... no? n/t

[PhillySane]

199. Wasted?

He didn't waste a year on it it if he never had any intention of passing it in the first place. What passed was watered down and then re-gifted to the insurance companies. It would not go into full-effect for 4 years, plenty of time for the Republicans to kill it. I never believed that he and the Senate Dems ever really wanted anything of substance out there.

[Ikonoklast]

201. Nothing was 'overthrown' in the courts. Get a grip.

The administration already knew this one appeal would lose, and the issue kicked to a higher court.

The SC will hear this case, as this administration knew it would, and has been planning for it.


We are not back to 'square one'.

Stop hyperventilating.

[dotymed]

203. Naturally

The wealthy/elite are happy and that is all that matters. Serfs are a dime a dozen...

[Javaman]

204. Oh please, a year hasn't been wasted...such drama

Come on, the health care corps got their pay day! And we got thrown under the bus!

It wasn't a wasted year...from the point of view of the have-even-mores.

[deaniac21]

207. Total lack of leadership.

[sarcasmo]

210. When you make over x amount it isn't really an option it is a forced payment.

[Deep13]

213. Right, the taxing power is pretty broad. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

214. Great that the repukes hate activist judges and would not condone a court overturning

Congressional Legislation...........

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

A public option is what we should have gotten in the first place....

[WiffenPoof]

216. The Day That We Caught Wind...

of what the HCR Bill was about, I recall that Keith O (in a special comment I believe) stated very clearly that he would NOT pay for mandatory insurance.-PLA

[WiffenPoof]

218. It Seems Obvious Why...

we ended up with the mandatory HC.

Playing devil's advocate here...

Or maybe this is actually a question for others here.

How was it going to be possible to have a PO when it would mean that Health Insurance companies would eventually go under, right? I can't imagine how difficult it would be to write a policy that would spell the demise of the insurance companies.

I'm all for insurance companies being terminated...I just can't see how it would have been done.

-PLA

[Capn Sunshine]

219. MANDATED HEALTHCARE HAS NOT BEEN OVERTHROWN IN THE COURTS

Not one person in this thread is apparently aware one flawed decision in West Virginny by a partisan judge who owns a company that worked to overturn HCR during the elections, and also set up Sarah Palins PAC, and has elementary legal flaws is NOT the basis for anything.

To make the leap to "overthrown by the courts" is either highly histrionic or actual disinformation.

[kentuck]

220. This Supreme Court will rule with the Tea Baggers.

K & R

[mistertrickster]

222. Yup. And you know where the Supreme Court will come down on this.

They'll either let it stand or rule on it and support it.

That's where "compromise" gets you.

Obama's playing 3-D chess? Really. I know something about the game: I know you can't win after you get checkmated.

[guruoo]

224. "mandated purchase" failure will only broaden support for single payer

Intentional, perhaps?

[California Griz]

235. There is a public option in the Bill

It's a state run public option where the feds will send all the supplement money to the state to run it's own health care program. If the haters would stop with their BS long enough to learn what's in the bill they would not be so upset.

[Bluebear]

237. "The haters" - whatever. nt

[area51]

243. Kick.

Mandates are a republican idea:

Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

Find out about single-payer health care.

"Any proposal that sticks with our current dependence on for-profit private insurers ... will not be sustainable. And the new law will not get us to universal coverage ...." -- T.R. Reid, The Healing of America