Health reform advocates have little to fear from judge's ruling

[pampango]

Source: Washington Post

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee (and part-owner of a Republican campaign-consulting firm that fought the health-care overhaul legislation), has, as expected, ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. So why are reform advocates so unexpectedly pleased?

There are two reasons, but first, let's put this into context. Hudson's ruling is the third from a district court so far. Previously, Judge Norman Moon found the mandate constitutional, and so did Judge George Steeh. Steeh and Norman were Clinton appointees, which is to say that the rulings have been proceeding along predictably partisan lines.

The disagreements between the various courts virtually ensure that the Supreme Court will eventually take up the case. But right now, the range of opinions stretch from "the law is fine" to "the individual mandate is not fine, but the rest of the law is." That could create problems for the legislation if the mandate is repealed and Republicans block any attempts at a fix, but it's a far cry from a world in which the Supreme Court strikes down the whole of the health-care law.

The real danger to health-care overhaul is not that the courts will strike down the individual mandate. That would be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservatives' legal argument against the provision) (such as) giving people the right to opt out of the mandate if they agree to be ineligible for the subsidies or insurance protections for five years. This policy problem, like most policy problems, can be worked out.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121305475.html

[Alcibiades]

1. Health Care Reform is actually better without the mandate

All the other provisions still apply. The mandate was the giant give-away to the health insurance industry: without it, the Patient Protection and Aflordable Care Act actually does a better job of providing patient protection and affordable care.

[Recursion]

3. And without it, insurers have to deny pre-existing conditions or go bankrupt

PPACA is not "fine" without it; it's what makes PPACA actuarially feasible.

Hell, even Germany's health care system won't let you just sign up whenever you get sick if you've passed up the chance previously.

[BenzoDia]

8. Yep, the mandate spreads the cost of health care among the healthy,

which is what more progressive systems do anyways.

[Romulox]

12. It also spreads out private PROFITS across the populace. No progressive systems do THAT.

:hi:

[Recursion]

22. Every state has to provide a non-profit insurance option as part of their exchange

:hi:

(well, :hi: come 2014, at least)

[Romulox]

23. I don't think this is true. Link please! nt

[Alcibiades]

25. How so?

The cost of the uninsured is borne today by the rest of us. Unless folks with preexisting conditions all somehow favor one company over another, I don't see why they would be driven out of business. Private health insurers don't go bankrupt: they are far more likely to be bought by another entity.

Here's a thought: instead of spending money on ways not to cover people, they could treat the sick. They could cut the salaries of their executives.

Anyway, I like this ruling: universal coverage without a preexisting condition benefit exclusion, without forcing people to buy crappy insurance products when what they actually need is medical care. I am not at all concerned that health insurers will go bankrupt: it pains me more that people they supposedly cover die because the current system allows them to gyp their policyholders. Don't you worry, either: they will still find a way to make money.

[No Elephants]

2. Words baffling to conserative judges: "You have a conlict of interest. Recuse yourself."

Why does a federal judge own an interest in a Repubican campaign-consulting firm anyway?

[groundloop]

4. The MSM is sure playing up this one ruling by a biased judge, they forget to mention.....

that 14 other judges (according to DailyKOS) have either ruled in favor of the entire law or refused to hear the case because it had no merit. 14 judges rule in favor of the law and the MSM doesn't make a peep, one single solitary judge (with a conflict of interest to boot) rules against the law and the MSM is ablaze. Go figure.

Now then, I too wish there were a public option in the law, but thanks to Joe LIE-berman plus the Party of NO that didn't happen and this is what we have, so we may as well make the best of it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Unattributed

No, not you, but the article in the WaPo. Online, it shows up like this:

Health reform advocates have little to fear from judge's ruling

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 14, 2010

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee (and part-owner of a Republican campaign-consulting firm that fought the health-care overhaul legislation), has, as expected, ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. So why are reform advocates so unexpectedly pleased?

In the actual newspaper, the article, on page A17, is clearly the work of Ezra Klein. I don't see why the online version has no attribution. Go figure.

[ixion]

6. This piece of legislation had nothing whatsoever to do with health CARE reform

it was, in fact, the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act, and nothing more. It has made matters worse, not better.

[fascisthunter]

7. Health Insurance, not Healthcare Reform... what a load of crap

and the reform for insurance was garbage.

[pampango]

11. Without a National Health Service, all we're going to get is health insurance reform. n/t

[Romulox]

13. I thought you were all about "free markets"?

When the market decides contrary to the big corporations, however, you are suddenly in favor of a vigorous government intervention into the so-called "free market", going so far as to call for legislation to permanently guaranty corporate profits. It's not an entirely coherent ideology. :shrug:

[pampango]

17. Thinking that a National Health Service would "permanently guaranty corporate profits" is not

an entirely coherent ideology. And, yes, I am "in favor of a vigorous government intervention into the so-called "free market" in the form of a National Health Service. Short of an NHS, all we are talking about is insurance reform.

[Romulox]

18. The US has no NHS. The Obama HCR involved mandatory, for-profit health insurance

THAT is what you are vigorously defending. You can't pretend it away. :silly:

[pampango]

21. How do you figure that this OP is a defense of Obama's HCR?

"The individual mandate was created by conservatives who realized that it was the only way to get universal coverage into the private market. Otherwise, insurers turn away the sick, public anger rises, and, eventually, you get some kind of government-run, single-payer system, much as they did in Europe, and much as we have with Medicare.

If Republicans succeed in taking it off the table, they may sign the death warrant for private insurers in America: Eventually, rising cost pressures will force more aggressive reforms than even Obama has proposed, and if conservative judges have made the private market unfixable by removing the most effective way to deal with adverse selection problems, the only alternative will be the very constitutional, but decidedly non-conservative, single-payer path."

The point of the OP is that the repub strategy of seeking to kill the individual mandate will, in the long run, cause so many problems that it will lead to European-style "government-run" (like in the UK) or "single-payer" like in many other European countries. (Kind of ironic that repubs would do this to themselves.) You know me. I tend to like European policies when it comes to safety net issues (like health care), taxation, trade, unions, immigration, etc.

Not sure how you read this OP as a vigorous defense of Obama HCR. Or are you just pretending not to get it? ;)

[BenzoDia]

9. Just a note: In Switzerland, the people are required to buy health insurance as well.

The insurers are required to offer a basic standard to everyone (that they cannot profit from). They provide subsidies as well. And their system ranks better than ours according to the WHO and they're generally happy with their system.

Our health exhcanges are intended to function like their basic plan by offering a minimum of quality and pay. There will be hiccups along the way, but the Swiss have shown how to run a successful private system.

[Romulox]

14. "They are ***not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance***"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

"Our health exhcanges are intended to function like their basic plan by offering a minimum of quality and pay."

It's still for profit, and therefore entirely dissimilar to the Swiss system. :hi:

[BenzoDia]

15. Ehm, I actually mentioned that in my post.

But the idea is still the same, government regulated plan offered through private insurers.

[Romulox]

16. Right, but you tried to downplay it, and ultimately arrived at an erroneous conclusion.

"But the idea is still the same"

No. For-profit, and not-for-profit systems are not "the same"; there are significant differences between them.

[BenzoDia]

19. Obamacare includes funding to establish non-profit health insurance issuers

Sec. 1322 in the PPACA discusses the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP).

As I originally mentioned, there will be hiccups along the way. But there's plenty there to get us on the right track.

[Romulox]

20. It may "discuss" co-ops, but it MANDATES private insurance.

"As I originally mentioned, there will be hiccups along the way."

The primary "hiccup" being a conservative SCOTUS finding the private health-insurance mandate unconstitutional, leaving the incoming Republican controlled House to "fix" it. Is this what you mean? :hi:

[BenzoDia]

24. Obviously the point of COOPs is to replace the public option and compete against private companies

[BenzoDia]

10. Deleted: dupe