Medical Doctors for Single Payer Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Individual Insurance Mandate

[Better Believe It]

NEWS RELEASE
Fifty Medical Doctors for Single Payer Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Individual Mandate
February 14, 2012

Fifty medical doctors who favor a single payer health insurance system today urged the US Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate.

In a brief filed with the Court, the fifty doctors and two non-profit groups – Single Payer Action and It’s Our Economy – said that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is the provision of the ACA that requires Americans to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies if they do not otherwise have coverage.

The doctors are challenging the government’s claim that the individual mandate is necessary to reach Congress’ goal of universal coverage.

“The court should decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate based on the best available evidence,” said attorney Oliver Hall.

“That’s why it is so important that these medical doctors provide the court with the information in their brief, which demonstrates that Congress can address the United States’ healthcare crisis by adopting a single payer system.”

“It is not necessary to force Americans to buy private health insurance to achieve universal coverage,” said Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action. “There is a proven alternative that Congress didn’t seriously consider, and that alternative is a single payer national health insurance system.”

“Congress could have taken seriously evidence presented by these single payer medical doctors that a single payer system is the only way to both control costs and cover everyone,” Mokhiber said. “Instead, Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), chair of the Senate Finance Committee which drafted the law that became the ACA, had two of those doctors – Dr. Margaret Flowers and Dr. Carol Paris – arrested and thrown in jail. Those doctors are now two of the 50 who have signed onto this brief challenging the Constitutionality of the ACA.”

“If the US Congress had considered an evidence-based approach to health reform instead of writing a bill that funnels more wealth to insurance companies that deny and restrict care, it would have been a no brainer to adopt a single payer health system much like our own Medicare,” said Dr. Margaret Flowers. “We are already spending enough on health care in this country to provide high quality universal comprehensive lifelong health care. All the data point to a single payer system as the only way to accomplish this and control health care costs.”

“People will have the greatest control of their own healthcare if the insurance industry is removed from between doctors and patients,” said Kevin Zeese of It’s Our Economy. “And, people will no longer be threatened with increased premiums, decreased coverage and financial ruin caused by a health crisis.”

Both Kevin Zeese and Dr. Margaret Flowers are organizers with the National Occupation of Washington, D.C. (nowdc.org).

Read the full legal brief at:

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/brief.pdf

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=3178

[Romulox]

1. The Federal government doesn't have the power to order us to buy products.

That is an unprecedented power grab, and it WILL NOT END with mandatory for-profit insurance. Mark my words.

[Zalatix]

6. I hear that. Doesn't matter, though, most people can't even afford it, and won't get it.

Enforcing this law will be next to impossible. Even levying extra taxes as a penalty won't work. This is a matter of waiting for this law to "bleed itself out".

[The Wielding Truth]

48. Read post#18.

[Zalatix]

49. It matters very little. People simply don't have the money. The math always wins.

The only way that many millions of working class people will pay for that mandate is to go homeless or rob banks. There are that many people whose budgets are already squeezed to the bone that being forced to buy overpriced health insurance will do them in.

BTW whatever happened to that law requiring Americans to buy guns?

[The Wielding Truth]

50. It can work. There are to be provisions for those who have trouble affording it and those who

work should just have it withheld like SS or taxes.

[Zalatix]

53. And it'll be those who work that and get it withheld that'll go under.

The hit on economic activity - the purchases they won't be making, if they can even take this hit and stay in their homes at the same time - will hit the whole economy hard.

[The Wielding Truth]

60. Wait. We're talking health ins. right? They would have to buy it anyhow and with out some change it

will become completely unaffordable, so better this than nothing.

[Zalatix]

63. Forcing people to buy health insurance is a quick way to bankrupt the people.

With as little as working class America is earning now, adding mandatory health insurance premiums to the mix is just going to break their budgets.

Private health insurance is doomed. Medicare for all would cost less per person due to the insurance law of large numbers. Reality has proven this to be true in every nation that has the equivalent of Medicare for all. THAT is a burden that is more bearable by the working class.

http://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/l/law-of-large-numbers.aspx

[The Wielding Truth]

73. SS Ins. and Unemployment Insurance did not bankrupt "the people". Corruption did.

I do not argue that insurance works when many are enrolled. It has worked for centuries. It is working now with Social Security Insurance and Unemployment insurance that all working people pay into. National Health Insurance is a viable way to ease us into National Health Care. Like everything else that is run by profit making companies, our biggest problem will be to enforce the stipulation that 85% of the money paid be used for patient care and profits be held to 15% or less. Companies can make a huge profit and everyone will pay what they can afford. Health Insurance is not free now. People who cannot afford it will be subsidized. If you work, can you refuse to pay Social Security Insurance now?No. If you don't work will you be covered? Yes. This will move quickly into National Healthcare because no one will imprison those who do not work and cannot pay.

There should be a lot of wiggle room for change. The Affordable Healthcare Act is just being formed. We need a Congress full of responsible thinking progressive minds to figure this out. Our problem has been the reactionary foolish republicans with their heads full of crazy Fox fear. They have to be sent back home to contemplate reality and they should not be put back into any position that will affect our lives.

Zalatix, the ACA is a complicated and messy compromise with Teabag-Twerps. It will help, for now, more than it will hurt . Let's get the smart uncorrupted Progressive minds into Congress to perfect it. It's so cool to discuss concerns with another Duer.

If I am off with my understanding I will need to be cited the wording from the current laws.Hey, I could have any part of this wrong. I know I am no mental giant, but I know I have a mind that can reasonably distill an issue.

[Zalatix]

75. We should be looking past ACA to Medicare for All.

[img][/img]

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Home

[NAO]

18. Yes they do; It is precidented; first mandate to purchse was 1792

Just two years after the constitution became the law of the land, the nation's Second Congress, a body that included influential founders such as Aaron Burr and Rufus King, along with the aptly named James Gunn of Georgia, passed the nation's first individual mandate in 1792.

Like the individual mandate at issue in the health care overhaul legislation, Congress passed this early mandate in realization of the fact that the health and safety of all Americans requires individuals relinquishing a modicum of personal freedom for the benefit of themselves and their neighbors. But obviously, the Second Congress did not require Americans to buy health insurance (a product that wouldn't exist as we know it for more than 150 years) but rather, the federal government required Americans to purchase firearms, ammunition, and the essential accessories required for military service.

Congress required that essentially every white male between 18 and 45 years old purchase: "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder . . . ."

[Romulox]

22. Our government is one of "Enumerated Powers". So an "Enumerated Basis" for exercise of

such power must be located in order to form a compelling argument regarding the precedential effect of previous exercises of such power.

In the case of the Militia Act of 1792, the power in question is the Congress' power to "provide for the common Defence" (US Constitution Art I., Sec. 8).

In the case of the Healthcare Mandate, the "common Defence" (sic) is not the basis of the asserted power to compel all citizens to purchase private health insurance, and therefore my assertion stands. No example of the US Federal government using its Commerce Clause power to compel a private citizen to purchase a product form a private corporation may be located. That's because the Federal government has never previously asserted such a power.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Weak precedent, that mandate did not dictate the good rifle, shot, balls, and powder

would be at the election of the individuals employer. Instead, the individual made his own call on which rifle and supporting equipment themselves. They choose how to meet the mandate, not their bosses.

This mandate is a debacle and no a mandate is not a mandate and this one is too poorly structured to be suffered as it sets a precedent that the government can make us buy publically traded, for profit goods from the company store.

[bvar22]

33. " The Federal government doesn't have the power to order us to buy products." !!!

Especially expensive, near worthless (Bronze Coverage) "products" from a
"For Profit" Industry that:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Provides NO Service

*Creates NO Wealth (value added)

The Billions of Dollars Every Year channeled into this parasitic industry is thrown down a Black Hole of pure WASTE.
America receives NOTHING of value to show for this Money Spent.
Health "Insurance" does NOT equal Health Care.

The much vaunted "Subsidies for the Poor" is clever camouflage used to disguise the fact that this money does NOT go to The Poor & Near Poor, but is Public Taxpayer Money that goes directly into the pockets of the Health Insurance Cartel!


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Romulox]

34. Every dime of their profit is from denied care.

That's the chilling reality of the matter.

"The much vaunted "Subsidies for the Poor" is clever camouflage used to disguise the fact that this money does NOT go to The Poor & Near Poor, but is Public Taxpayer Money that goes directly into the pockets of the Health Insurance Cartel! "

Yep. Nailed it.

[Mimosa]

51. ^ Amen, BVar ^

Good for our doctors.

[limpyhobbler]

66. very well said. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Hear! Hear! K&R

[mike_c]

3. excellent!

eom

[think]

4. K&R

[loyalsister]

5. Yeah, that'll help

Undo the closest we have ever come to universal health care coverage in the name of "progress."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Like with the Republican's "blank sheet of paper"

there is no "replace" waiting in the wings when it comes to Medicare-for-all SP, unfortunately.

[loyalsister]

31. This ball started rolling a very long time ago

Truman called for it and Johnson got Medicare through. Clinton's initiative stalled and Obama finally made some progress. To expect the current or count on the next congress to pass single payer is delusional.

[Edweird]

64. Uh, no. We are now the FARTHEST away from universal health care we have ever been.

The RW individual mandate is the OPPOSITE of universal health care. Insurance is NOT health care.

[loyalsister]

71. ???

It is still available in the ER if a person is dying (The only option for some for a long time), and in 2014, more people will have access to health care than before. More people have access how is that farther away?

[taught_me_patience]

7. This is counter productive

and will undo the ACA... for a pipe dream.

[Hoyt]

25. I agree completely. Leaving it up to the Supreme Court will be a Cluster-F*$K.

Single payer is likely the best way to go ultimately -- but encouraging the SC to remove the mandate will end any improvement in health care for another 20 years.

[derby378]

68. Fine - the mandate was an idea dreamed up by Republicans in the first place

We're Democrats. We're not supposed to pass Republican legislation. Kill the mandate, keep us free.

[Chan790]

36. Disagree.

I think upholding the ACA's individual mandate does more damage than striking it and telling them "back to the drawing board!" This Congress or the next doesn't have the option of refusing to take up the issue, they're going to hear about it until they do something about it.

The public wants a healthcare fix. If this one which shouldn't stand doesn't stand, there will be a clamor to get back to fixing this problem. It's not just an insurance issue, it's also an economy and employment issue. It becomes a major election issue and one that the GOP is behind on.

[EFerrari]

8. K&R

[area51]

9. +1

[br]http://www.monthlyreview.org/0903navarro.htm
Each day, [a href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/0903navarro.htm" target="_blank"]273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.[/a]; that's 100,000 deaths per year. This is not only a moral issue, but a national security issue that we're so vulnerable given that our health care delivery system is so fragmented and dysfunctional.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
We need [a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php" target="_blank"]single-payer health care[/a], not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, bankrupts and kills people.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
[a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx"]Republican '93 plan:[/a]

[font face="courier"]"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."[/font]

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

"Employer-based health insurance has always been a bad idea. Your life should not depend on who you work for." -- T. McKeon

[font face="times"]"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[/font]

"Despite the present hyperbole by its supporters, this latest effort will end up as just another failed reform effort littering the landscape of the last century." --John Geyman, M.D., Hijacked! The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform

[subterranean]

10. Are these doctors really that naive?

Yes, I'm sure Congress would happily pass a single-payer health care bill if only they had the opportunity to consider its advantages. Gee, why didn't anyone mention this before?

These well-meaning doctors seem to ignore the fact that there was a single-payer bill (H.R. 676) in Congress for a long time, and it consistently failed to get anywhere near enough support to pass, even with a solid Democratic majority. What makes them think the Republican-controlled Congress, which wants to privatize Medicare, would pass a single-payer bill now, or even allow a vote on it? I'm not a fan of the private insurance mandate either, but if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, it will not be replaced with something better anytime soon.

[Aerows]

11. It's going to happen sooner or later

Health insurance has skyrocketed, and the government will have to step in. It's only a matter of time, but it is horrible for those who need help now and get none.

[subterranean]

14. Probably later.

It will only happen after the Affordable Care Act proves unsustainable. But for now, the ACA is better than nothing for most Americans. I think the best hope for single-payer is for a few individual states to implement it and demonstrate that it works. Maybe then more Americans will accept it and demand it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Isn't that essentially how Canada's SP system started out?

[bornskeptic]

52. Of course the cost of insurance will be irrelevant after 2014

for those of us with incomes below 400% of the poverty level, since premium cost will be limited to a reasonable percentage of income. In 2014 that should be about $45,000 for a childless single person, or about $94, 000 for a family of four. Most folks with incomes above that either have employer provided insurance or are wealthy enough not to worry much about the cost.

[Cleita]

12. Medicare For All.

It would be so simple to implement because most of the infrastructure is there already. It would need some adapting and improving as well as expansion to cover everyone, but yet it could be almost pain free to everyone except the health insurance industry. I say good riddance to them because they are the sole reason this hasn't happened already. Frankly, the Affordable Health Care Act or Romney Care aka as Obama care will burden the country with more debt in the long run because all those insurance companies will be feeding at the taxpayer's trough.

As a compromise, we should be able to offer Medicare as part of the insurance exchange for those who wish to buy it and cover those who can't buy it instead of forcing them choose for profit health plans.

[subterranean]

15. I agree, but we'll need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

We'll also need to take back the House and keep the presidency. If that happens, and without people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson around to muck things up, a Medicare buy-in (if not Medicare-for-All) might have a chance. In the meantime, since the insurance exchanges will be state-based, maybe states can create their own public options? I read that Connecticut is considering that.

[Cleita]

17. Good luck. We almost got single payer in California.

All we needed was two votes in the Senate to pass it and some of our Democrats refused to vote for it so the bill is dead. Those Democrats got large campaign contributions from the industry. I think campaign finance reform will have to be done before anything else can be accomplished. However, I think we are going to have to take to the streets and have general strikes before anything like that happens.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. We had those things when the ACA was before congress. n/t

[Better Believe It]

13. The Health Care Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act is not a progressive step forward.

It places us completely at the mercy of the insurance industry, big phrama companies and Wall Street.

They wrote the bill with help from their friend in the White House.

So if the mandated coverage is overturned by the courts I say good riddance!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Yet insurance companies are not rejoicing over it either

Most of them still want "Obamacare" dead. Why is that?

[Hoyt]

26. +1. Insurers know the Exchanges and Medical Loss Ratio will tie their hands and make them

be more competitive. Maybe not as efficient as single payer, but still more competitive.

"Obamacare" ain't perfect, but it's better than what we had and what we'll get if the Supreme Court nullifies the whole thing right before the election.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. My feelings exactly

I REALLY hope that SCOTUS doesn't ruin this chance at progress. The way I see it there are 3 different outcomes:

1. Ideal: SCOTUS votes to preserve PPACA with mandate.

2. Less Ideal: SCOTUS strikes down mandate but preserves integrity of PPACA. This will require some adjustments likely but with President Obama re-elected and a Democratic Congress, I'm sure that some palatable solution will be found.

3. Awful: SCOTUS strikes down mandate and the rest of PPACA along with it.

Based on the outcomes of various court cases to date, my guess is that #1 and #2 are the most likely potential outcomes with #3 being very unlikely as only one(?) court has struck down PPACA in its entirety and I don't see how striking down the mandate would necessitate sinking the entire law with it.

[Better Believe It]

32. If there is any justice in this country the Supreme Court will strike down the insurance mandate

[kenny blankenship]

42. "and that alternative is a single payer national health insurance system"

He could stop right there. The SCOTUS will never find this criminal, forced insurance purchasing unConstitutional for the simple reason that they all KNOW what that alternative means: Government shoving aside an insanely lucrative cartel of financial industry players who prey on the 99%, and letting the people provide healthcare for themselves at maximum efficiency. Single Payer would signal the beginning of the end for the national mindset of "you're on your own". The war of each against all could finally begin to wind down. So, five "justices" will be solidly against striking down the ACA and the mandate right there. They may not love the ACA, but the real constituency of the Republican party FUCKING LOVES the idea of using the law to force people to buy things, and it fucking HATES the idea that the people might someday assert their sovereign right to look out for the public interest and put an end to a highly profitable extortion racket. Their clerks will write their opinions for them as the conservative "Justices" quietly sit on the bench and play Angry Birds on their phones. The four "Liberals" will be just as comfy with the oozing corporatism (Benito's sense of the word) of the ACA, and any of the four on the Dem side thinking of getting out of line will be yanked back by the need to save face for Obama.

"If there's any justice in this land..." you could have stopped right there.

[Better Believe It]

28. Please post the links proving insurance industry opposition to the legislation.

And perhaps you can at least explain why the the insurance industry is against millions of new people being forced to pay them premiums in a few years ..... perhaps they don't need or want the money?

And I just don't recall the barrage of insurance industry TV ads demanding that Congress not pass the legislation they wrote.

[eridani]

39. They are only against the parts regulating them (however inadequately) n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Yes, how could they not LOVE a legal requirement that gives them over 300 million

captive customers and still allows them to impose high deductibles and practice age discrimination?

My God, it's a license to print money, and anyone who doesn't see that either hasn't thought this thing through or is a closet "privatize everything" type.

[derby378]

69. +1000 (n/t)

[Viva_Daddy]

29. I think this Court filing may be a bit of legal jujitsu.

The prospect that the Country may go to a Single Payer Plan if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional may just push the conservative members of the Supreme Court to not rule against the mandate.

[Motown_Johnny]

79. You are ignoring the power of the insurance industry

If the mandate is overturned as a stand alone clause the insurance companies are going to go off the deep end.

They won't be able to turn people down based on pre-existing conditions and people won't be required to purchase insurance until they need it.

I hope that the outcome will be some type of single payer major medical coverage while leaving more extensive coverage up to the private insurance companies. IMO it is the most we can possibly hope for at this point.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[DCKit]

19. The Republics will counter with "The NHS took out the British economy!"

'Cause you know, like, they don't have banks over there and Goldman Sachs doesn't do business outside of the U.S..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Plus they aren't a small island country that still has a military more suitable

to running their former empire. Plus they haven't deindustrialized even faster than the U.S.

[bvar22]

35. The very best thing that can happen for the future of the Democratic Party...

...would be for the Supreme Court to strike down The Mandate.

If The Mandate is enforced in 2014,
and 40 MILLION to 70 MILLION (projected Americans without Insurance in 2014) of already struggling Working Class Americans are FORCED to BUY junk "Insurance&quot Bronze Coverage) from a wealthy Corporation,
ALL hell will break loose. Most of these Americans are unaware of exactly WHAT is waiting for them in 2014.

Even with a "subsidy", most of these MILLIONS will be forced to reach into near empty pockets and checking accounts to pay for a "product" that they can't afford to use due to high Co-Pays & deductibles.
The MILLIONS will NOT be happy.
They WILL blame the Democratic Party,
and rightly so.
The Democrats passed a Republican Insurance SCAM without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility.

ALL the Republicans have to do is sit back,
wait for the Perfect Storm to hit in 2014,
and then say, "Yep. We voted against it"
and Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.

If the Supreme Court is able to strike down the Mandate,
the Democrats CAN quickly walk away from the coming disaster,
and say, "Well. At least we tried."

The people who designed this do NOT understand the American People who have to Work for a Living,
and what will happen if you force them to spend money that is already in their pockets
for something they think is worthless.
Using the IRS as the Collection Agency for Mandated Insurance
will only add fuel to the outrage.
Does anybody here believe that THIS is going to go well?

Do you know that the term "Medical Bankruptcy" does NOT exist in civilized countries?
And that after ALL the provisions of this "Historic" reform are enacted,
Medical Bankruptcy will STILL be Big Business in the USA,
perhaps even BIGGER as struggling Americans try to convert their "Bronze" coverage into actual Health Care.
Be Proud, because THAT is the "Uniquely American Solution"!!!

Here is what Candidate Obama had to say about "Mandates" before he became President:

[Better Believe It]

37. You are exactly right.

[mike_c]

38. best response in this thread....

Nailed it, dead on!

[eridani]

40. +10,000 n/t

[Dragonfli]

41. Very well explained, but I fear that the die-hards in the party are blind to reality

Or simply drunk on the neo-liberal "profits first!" ideology of the Republican wing of the party (formerly known as DLC).

It will not end well and they will still be pushing this Heritage Foundation crap as Democratic until we vomit to death on it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. I suspect that's the reason that

1) The details of the initial bill were so unpublicized, leaving the less-informed, both advocates and foes of health care reform, to believe that Obama was working on single payer. (I talked to several people during the negotiations who believed that Obama was working on a Canadian-style system.)

2) Full implementation was delayed till 2014, when either (God forbid) a Republican is in the White House or Obama can't run for another term anyway.

I'm slightly better off financially now than I was in 2009, thanks to a small inheritance, but if that hadn't happened, I would have been in very bad shape in 2014, a bit too young for Medicare, too "rich" for Medicaid or a subsidy, and too poor to pay for bronze coverage for someone of my age.

NOTE: A mandate for real health care reform, as in required enrollment in a Canadian-style system or higher taxes for a British-style system with a private option, no problem! I'd be in the first part of the line to sign up. But I already resent what I'm paying the pseudo-concerned insurance vultures for "health" insurance that's really just asset protection at this point.

[bvar22]

46. I am continually sirprised at the amount of Americans...

... who are completely unaware of what is scheduled for 2014.
Even strong, active members of the Democratic Party who consider themselves "informed" have no clue about what is going to happen in 2014.

The smartest thing the Democrats did was to postpone the firestorm until AFTER the 2012 elections.
If you want to see Americans In the Streets with torches & pitchforks,
make them pay for something out of their pockets with money they think belongs to them
for something they don't want.

Its much easier to get the money off the front end, before they get a chance to hold it in their hand and put it in their pocket,
but you are in for a Death Match fight if you try to Take their Money Away AFTER it is in their pocket.

[Better Believe It]

47. Fifty Doctors in Support of Single Payer File Amicus Brief Against Individual Mandate

Fifty Doctors in Support of Single Payer File Amicus Brief Against Individual Mandate
By: Jon Walker
February 14, 2012

A group of fifty doctors along with the non-profits groups, Single Payer Action and Our Economy, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act should be struck down.

The brief argues that Congress doesn’t need the new power to compel individuals to buy a product from a private company to effectively regulate the healthcare marketplace. It can easily do so with its current approaches, such as a single payer system, which is used for Medicare. The individual mandate is therefore neither a “necessary” nor “reasonable” expansion of authority to achieve the government’s stated objectives.

The policy argument for the individual mandate has always been extremely dubious. If the government wants everyone to be covered by health insurance, an individual mandate is an ineffective tool that will never fully achieve that goal. Other methods that have the government just directly provide insurance for those without insurance with very basic coverage would do a significantly better job. Congress only needs the mandate, because it actively chose not to use one of several more effective alternatives that are indisputably constitutional.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/02/14/fifty-doctors-in-support-of-single-payer-file-amicus-brief-against-individual-mandate/

[xchrom]

54. my thanks to these doctors. nt

[Better Believe It]

55. This lead post doesn't appear on the front page because the number of recommends is irrelevant

The front page "recommend" list is no longer determined by the number of recommends.

This post has 59 recommends.

This post does not appear on the front page recommend list, however, a post with 58 recommends does appear on the front page!

I've seen this happen several times now on DU.

So who decides what posts appear on the DU front page recommend list and what are the new criteria?

[bvar22]

57. That worries me.

I initially thought that maybe the 24 hours had expired,
so I checked the posting time of your OP,
and it was 1 minute within the 24 hours time frame.
Your OP was time stamped at Tue Feb 14, 2012, 11:19 AM.
Several minutes had to elapse during the time span you noticed it was MIA,
and composed your above post which is time stamped at 11:18 AM,
so this is MORE than just a 1 minute error.

Did it appear on the Greatest Page yesterday at all?
I don't spend much time here anymore,
but I found it somehow.

[Quantess]

58. Maybe it's because you posted it.

Just a guess.

[Better Believe It]

59. Why would that be a factor?

[Quantess]

61. Uh oh. I pulled something out of thin air again.

Sometimes I do that and then regret it.

Actually I have no idea, just wild speculation on my part. You are sort of a controversial DUer, that's all I meant.

[joeybee12]

62. Damn these doctors! Why didn't they make massive campaign contributions...

Instead of trying to do what's best for people! Fools!

[Edweird]

65. Awesome! K&R

[limpyhobbler]

67. Forcing people to buy crappy overpriced insurance. Who thought that one up?

Oh yeah the Heritage Foundation did.

PPACA is crap. It is going to increase profits for the private health insurance companies while running average people into poverty.

We need a public health care option or at least a public insurance option.

[gulliver]

70. Striking down the mandate would postpone single payer by a decade or two.

Right now we are on track for single payer. But if the health care law suffers big setback, particularly before the election, then the forward progress will be undone.

I think the next step forward will be a public option. After that, single payer is an inevitability. The reasons Republicans like liberals who are against the mandate is that it helps them undermine the current health care law.

[joshcryer]

72. Precisely. This is just bemoaning from people who aren't getting what they want now.

Childish, petulant, whining from the privileged. I've come to expect it.

[Better Believe It]

78. You're right. Just more whining from the 99% who don't appreciate corporations and Wall Street

[bvar22]

74. We are on the tack for Single Payer?

Please support this opinion, because it is illogical to me.
Codifying and Legitimizing the For Profit Corporations as the gateway to health care in the US only strengthens these establishments.
Channeling BILLIONS every year into their pockets,
and forcing EVERY American, by LAW, with penalties collected by the IRS,
to BUY junk insurance from these Corporations without creating a Public Option is NOT a step toward Single Payer.
It IS a step in the other direction.

There will be NO "Fixing it Later".
We WILL live with this nightmare for a long time.

Common Sense dictates that this "Historic Health Care Reform" has actually postponed Single Payer
as neither Republicans nor Democrats will wish to revisit this fight again.
Instead, the Democrats will rock back and proclaim MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!,
as they are doing now.

Please tell me where and when you see the mechanism become available to move toward Single Payer,
unless you believe that The MANDATE in 2014 will finally force enough outraged Americans into the streets
to actually demand and receive Single Payer from our government.

To save you some time,
if you point to the movement in some states like the one that recently FAILED in California, to implement their own Single Payer System,
these programs will NOT be able to offer much advantage over the private plans that are already available.
In order to achieve any acceptable improvement,
the risk pool must be expanded to the entire country.
Individual states will not be able to have a large enough risk pool,
and the waste from redundant, duplicated administrative bureaucracy X50 for each state will absorb most of the overhead savings that could be achieved with ONE National Insurance Pool.

Opportunities like the one we had in 2008 come only once a generation,
and THIS one was wasted.
Please tell me what magical alignment you see that will allow Americans to take another step toward a National health Insurance program. To take this step, we would FIRST have to undo Obamacare,
because it etablished NOTHING that can be built upon.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[girl gone mad]

76. Really? That's your argument?

So I guess the Republicans were right all along. If only we'd listened to Nixon and Dole, we'd have single payer now.

[Better Believe It]

77. Forcing millions to buy an insurance industry policy will postpone single payer by at least 20 years