A simple question to those applauding the latest decision saying the mandate is unconstitutional

[dsc]

just how do you propose that people with pre existing conditions get coverage? There is no chance at a public option. There is no medicare for all. I can understand people who feel that Obama and many of his supporters here are total hypocrites on this issue when they ran around decrying mandates during the primary only to turn on a dime in governance. But the simple fact is either we have a mandate or we don't cover pre existing conditions. Which is it?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I couldn't agree more. However, I'm PISSED off that people are saying a public option isn't

possible. Of course it's possible. There are already public options in place: Medicare and Medicaid. The idea that there's no possible public option possible is bullsh*t they want us to go along with.

[patrice]

4. +1,000,000,000 = Medicare PAYMENT reform could be a door into Medicare for All, Bernie Sanders even

said once several months ago, that we should investigate whether that could be done incrementally by means of rule writing, and, then, of course, there's always the state by state route.

I pretty clearly recall Obama saying during the campaign that the mandate, while politically problematic, was economically necessary. And it is also said that his own personal position, before he started on the road to the presidency, was some sort of variation on Single Payer. This IS one of if not the main reason they hate him so much and why there are so many people trying to destroy him with anything they can find.

SOLUTIONS do not matter to one whole HELL of a lot of people as much as counting coup in their own political games.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Exactly. And their political games consist in benefiting corporations and the mega-rich..

at the expense of the rest of us.

That's the whole purpose of their political games.

[patrice]

20. I'm going to stop being nice to them. nt

[dsc]

9. we have a GOP House

it is a literal impossibility.

[LaydeeBug]

28. and we have a bully pulpit. Oh wait, he won't use it. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. NEVER. All he does is try to be nice and concede everything to the GOP

He'll sell his newborn to the GOP. I even wrote an e-mail to the White House BEGGING HIM to please come to his base FIRST, before the GOP, that we could organize and do what need be for him.

Does he bother? Hell no. He's trying to be popular with the very people who are incessant in trashing him. I cannot even FATHOM being trashed and dragged through the mud by anyone, then trying to be friendly with those people. I'd get my own friends and attack back.

Is that happening? Hell no.

[SwampG8r]

91. i never noticed that before

why has he never come to us and said"here is where we want to go help us get there"?
i have yet to be urged to do anything in support since the election
before it was phone bank and lick stamps and door to door
since then.....not so much
i wonder how much of the frustration i see here over him would dissipate if we were allowed to be involved

[Sheepshank]

52. And this assinine meme keeps making the rounds

Please explain, (with some reality in mind), how you think the bully pulpit will get the Tp/RW'ers to change their votes? Step by step.

I'll be waiting?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. And the GOP presidents had moments of Democratic Congresses. It didn't stop them

Let's stop providing myriad excuses to only one president with a 1/2 of the Congress not of his party.

The system for one-payer medical system is already in place. The bullshit of bringing in insurance companies, is strictly and exclusively an attempt to be popular with the GOP. I'm tired of this. He gets trashed by the GOP, he gets called Muslim, he gets called not an American, he gets told to show his birth certificate, AND HE DOES, he gets trashed. And what's his response? He goes to them very friendly and makes concessions.

Does he appeal to us, his base, who campaigned tirelessly for him, who took vacations from work to canvass for him? Who donated money beyond what we could donate? Heck, no! Why do that?

Then he tells us that yes, the poor WILL have to make sacrifices. And he tells us that Reagan was an admirable man.

I'm beyond frustrated.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. The public option isn't possible with the current congress.

People seem to forget that the public option wasn't planned for everyone. It was a product that would give the very minimum medical service at a low price to force the big insurance companies to compete with better plans at somewhat higher but still lower prices (Value added) in order to compete. It is Capitalism 101.

It could not even get out of committee in the Senate and would never have passed Congress that would successfully filibuster it.

A public option wasn't possible in the Congress as it existed before 2010, and it is a fantasy to think it would pass in the current Congress, with a House whose goal is to destroy "Obamacare" because they detest that bill so much it makes them shit their trousers to think of it.

Not being possible means that there was no way to get it to a vote that would pass. Elect a better Congress, one that does believe in Capitalism, and you will get a public option. Elect one that believes in serving the people, and you will have Medicare for all as a revolution that will transform the nation. Without that better Congres, which is probably almost a big a fantasy as to think that the public option would pass, it isn't possible. Shit canning the good parts of the bill is just wrong.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. Maybe, and maybe not. We have in office a president whose primary effort is to make the GOP happy

He began by saying that Reagan was an admirable man, when he was a (pardon the French) evil shithead who set up the basis for destroying this country.

He NEVER ONCE publicly said that the public option NEEDED TO leave the insurance companies OUT. Not even once.

[True Blue Democrat]

56. Bull-fucking-shit

The Public option was THERE.

You want to know who I squarely place the blame on for removing the public option? Obama. And also one man by the name of Max Baucus.

That man needs to be removed from his seat and replaced with Brian Schweitzer as soon as possible. Put the a-hole in the pasture.

[BlueDemKev]

58. There weren't enough votes in the Senate to create a public option

...remember, Harry Reid TRIED HIS BEST (and lost Olympia Snowe's support for doing so). We needed all 60 Democrats that were in the Senate in the Fall of 2009 to get anything passed. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and a handful of other Democrats would not support the public option. Therefore, we had to settle with what we could get.

[True Blue Democrat]

64. Ahem. The Republicans were always threatening us with nuclear option

Had it been invoked, things would have been much better than the crap that was sold to us.

And no, a simple majority is NOT 60. It's 51, and all of the Republicans needs to take remedial math, civics and American history lessons (not the revisionist crap)

Reid made a HUGE mistake by not invoking the nuclear option and cancelling it before the 2010 Congress started.

Here is an amendement to the Constitution for all to consider:

ALL CONGRESS AND SENATE MEMBERS MUST PASS A COMPREHENSIVE AMERICAN HISTORY AND AMERICAN CIVICS EDUCATION (AND NONE OF THAT REVISIONIST CRAP) BY AT LEAST 85%. ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS WHO FAILS TO PASS THE REQUIRED EXAM WILL BE FORCED TO RESIGN, INELIGIBLE TO RUN AGAIN FOR NO MORE THAN 4 YEARS, SECOND SUBSEQUENT FAILURE EARNS A PERMANENT DISQUALIFICATION FROM RUNNING FOR CONGRESS AND SENATE EVER AGAIN.

[BlueDemKev]

76. Consider this choice...

We can either take this health care law, which despite it being far from perfect DOES have some GREAT things in it and improve on it, OR....we can go back to the old way and kick health care reform down the road AGAIN for another few decades.

:dilemma:

[PufPuf23]

17. Add VA and Indian Health Services nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Exactly. The system for single-payer doesn't have to be designed. It already exists. nt

[Cool Logic]

2. "just how do you propose that people with pre existing conditions get coverage?"

The same way we cover people with pre-existing dangerous driving conditions--assigned risk.

[dsc]

8. then literally hundreds of thousands will go without insurance

due to pre existing conditions. My insurance, which is by no means a cadillac plan, costs 5k a year with me being in a large health plan. If the factor were say 1.75, which is what I pay on my auto insurance for two tickets, neither resulting in an accident, it would increase to 8750 a year. But in the health care field risk premiums of 10 or a dozen times are not unheard of. that would be 50k a year. I would have literally a negative supply of money left over if I had to buy that before I did anything else.

[Cool Logic]

23. I did not make my point clearly...

The factors would be regulated as a component of health care reform and the risks would be assigned, or distributed equally amongst the insurers.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. People who don't like it simply don't give a damn...

They salve the conscious by saying that Congress will get together and pass a bill that doesn't cost them a damn thing. Somehow they think that this perfect bill that the perfect Congress will pass with a perfect vote will be free and cost nothing, or maybe just the rich will have to pay for it so it will cost them nothing. It is better to agitate and pay nothing or get someone else to pay for it than sacrifice for the good of everyone.

It is a very capitalist mentality.

[EFerrari]

7. Not necessarily. My objection isn't to the payment

but to the further ensconcing of the health insurance industry into our system. It's the wrong direction. Their purpose is to deny, not provide, care.

/oops

[Ozymanithrax]

16. There was never never a chance to remove health insurance from the system...

The public option was a capitalist mechanism, to provide a low cost very minimal service that would in a capitalist system where companies acutally compete to lower their prices and add value by providing more services. Even Medicare for all will not remove the health insurance industry from the system, as the current Medicare system utilizes HMO's, hospitals, and other services and is simply a single payer system.

The closest you get to a system like that is the U.S. military, which is a government owned, government managed, government run medical system.

I yet to see anyone come up with a realistic way to nationalize the health system in the U.S. That is what would be required. If we can not nationalize it, then how do we force the Health Insurance industry to lower prices and serve more people.

Germany has a very good national health care system that forces health insurance companies and hospitals to be non-profits. But that doesn't remove the health insurance companies, it just forces them to take lower profits.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. 'Lower profits'? No. In all other nations that mandate the

purchase of an insurance product, it is illegal to make any profit providing those products. They did not 'nationalize' the hospitals. They criminalized the taking of profit when citizens are mandated to buy.
Not many countries have nationalized health care. Not many have single payer. But not one in history has ever required that citizens contribute to the profit of private companies, and that is the major difference with our proposed plan. The entire civilized world sees it as a crime to profit under mandates. It is not surprising the courts would say so here too. Because it is an obvious wrong.

[Ozymanithrax]

33. We are not other nations.

They did not criminialize the profit, they set a limit on profits. They are other coutnries, and it is their right to do that.

In our country, we can do it our own way.

If you have no desire to give some of your money for the benefit of all, that is OK. You are free to feel that nobody but you desrves a penny of your money. It is a very common belief system here in the U.S.

People with preexisting conditions can ocntinue to suffer and die, because other people who don't want to use money for the benefit of all prefer it that way.

I find it amazing to see people who advocate taxing the rich because the don't pay their fair share but oppose paying the mandate (which is really just another form of tax) themselves.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. You don't know that. A system is ALREADY IN PLACE for the public option.

None needs to be designed anew.

[Ozymanithrax]

39. Where are the votes in the House to pass it...

Where are the votes in the Senate.

To think the votes are there is a fantasy.

I'll check back when the next Congress is sworn in. Maybe it will be possible then. I expect a wave election, though I've no idea which way the wave will go. I suspect, the party that wins the White House will be the party of the wave.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. Obama didn't campaign for it, never asked his base to back him for it,

never ONCE said it was possible.

He merely listened to the GOP, and said, "ok," in a tiny, soft voice.

The rest is history.

[Ozymanithrax]

44. And there were no votes to pass it...

Votes in the House and Senate make it possible. not whether a President runs on it. If a majority there gave a flying pig snout about public opinion, Republicans and Democrats would have created a New New Deal, and there would not have been fight after fight about cutting spending.

I see evidence that some Democrats and most Republicans keep an eye on what their base wants and throws a few bones to the rabid dogs that vote for them, but I see no evidence that public opinion or the bully pulpit mean anything.

Elect a better Congress. If we don't like what they do, we need to go to their offices, kick on the doors and demand that they do what we want.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Do you understand that he didn't even TRY? Didn't even SAY he wanted it but there weren't votes?

He didn't EVEN SAY IT.

[killbotfactory]

62. He didn't want to give those opposed to healthcare reform any specific point to rally around

Obama championing a public option would not have increased the odds of it, or any meaningful healthcare reforms, from passing. The obstacle was, and has been, republican filibusters putting right leaning democrats in a position to make or break legislation in the Senate.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. Then he should just have said, "I WANT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF THIS...

... AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THIS."

[killbotfactory]

65. Then he would have to wait two more years for a new solidly progressive congress

While he made hay of the issue and nothing got done in the meantime. The odds of a solidly progressive senate and house are currently slim to none, and no amount of Obama grandstanding on the issues will change that.

In terms of a poor poker analogy: It would be like asking someone with a full house to throw their hand away for the chance at a royal flush.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

68. That's our problem (Democrats). We won't fight. We give up and say, "Oh WELL, it's a bad Congress"

Look at the fights of the Repukes, and I'm not only referring to the Baggers. They fight for everything. We Democrats? We look, see a bad Congress and say, "Oh well, it's not worth fighting for. Let's just settle, bend over, agree to give the Repukes what they want."

That's wrong. He could have appealed to his base. We WERE a very energetic base! He didn't do that. He didn't use his podium. He sat back and said, "Uh oh, it's a bad Congress."

[Ikonoklast]

51. THE VOTES WERE NOT THERE.

Any public option was DOA in the Senate, Lieberman said he wouldn't vote for it...you can rant all you want, but only in idiot tries to push through a bill when told it has NO CHANCE of passing, you only end up pissing off your allies in the Senate, and it makes you look weak, stupid and politically naive when it fails.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

55. I don't care. He needed to say, "What I WOULD LIKE is a program that leaves out ins. companies...

... but the REPUBLICANS in Congress have no intention of letting Americans have that option."

Did he say that? Nope!

[JNinWB]

66. You really don't have a clue

About how Congress operates, do you?

Additionally, the Rs reflexively OPPOSE anything Obama supports.

Faith in the efficacy of the bully pulpit is touching. Really.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. What I do know is the Repukes fight for everything. If we just sigh and concede....

We will continue in this situation. That's what I DO know.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

75. well, a lot of people here on DU has a lot of faith in the bully pulpit

until such a time that he actually uses it, then they start talking about that its just pretty words and whats needed is actions.

[Ikonoklast]

67. Because it was DEMOCRATS that fucked the HCR bill, too.

Political suicide if he called them out on it, Obama would have been finished by his own party members if he did.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. Who? Who specifically fucked it up? I sure as hell didn't. nt

[True Blue Democrat]

57. Actually, you're dead wrong on this.

The public option was actually a better choice than just fucking giveaway to the corporation.

And yes, it had the votes, if it was actively pushed, but Obama, unfortuantely, swept the whole thing under the rug before it got even a chance to be considered.

This is why I am now for direct democracy. All voters should have a say on what they want on the bill, not what the corporation wants. That's why all votes are for sale. If we have direct democracy where we can have referendum on major issues such as health care, economy, war, then all of the politican's cash will be clean because they will BE taken out of play.

[Ikonoklast]

69. Total bullshit.

You are ignoring what actually happened and are substituting your own opinion as to what transpired as fact.

The PO was considered, and as soon as Lieberman said he'd filibuster it, IT WAS DEAD.

[True Blue Democrat]

72. Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic Party

so he was a minority on this one.

We still had the votes to bring it over, even with nuclear option that Reid should have invoked in the first place. It was _THAT_ important.

Now, with that fact in hand, you are finished with me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

73. Referendum. We need a lot of things to be voted on directly. nt

[Chimichurri]

5. That's a false choice. Pre-existing conditions could be banned right now.

[dsc]

6. not without requiring purchase

Otherwise no one would buy insurance because they could simply wait till they got sick, and then buy insurance with out any penalty.

[Chimichurri]

13. If that were true, no one would have insurance now. That's just nonsense.

[JVS]

22. Oh dear, what a tragedy that would be.

Why can't it be done though? How would it not be legal?

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Not with the Republican House. and not with a Senate where...

it would be filibustered to death.

So, no, it will not pass Congress right now or anytime before 2012, and then only if Congress changes hands.

[bemildred]

11. "just how do you propose that people with pre existing conditions get coverage?"

I propose a single-payer tax-funded universal health care system, sort of like Medicare, but covering everybody.

[Morning Dew]

12. Without being caught up on the latest decision....

and being in favor of universal single payer coverage...


I'd have to say that I don't support emotional appeals outweighing the constitution.

If that were the case, we'd have a lot less free speech (think of the children!)

We'd have more Bowers vs. Hardwick and fewer Lawrence vs. Texas.


We'd be less free than we are - and we aren't as free as we think we are.

Great question!

[DefenseLawyer]

15. Please correct me if I'm wrong

but I don't think there are any limits on how much insurance companies can charge to insure those with pre-existing conditions. In theory a mandate gives the insurance industry the income needed to offer insurance to those that won't be profitable. But if there are no limits on how much they can charge those with pre-existing conditions, I don't know why we should assume that they won't keep the cash from all those new customers and still "offer" health insurance to the sick at prices that most won't be able to afford.

[dsc]

25. actually there are such limits

there is community rating on insurance.

[Hoyt]

77. Sorry, you are wrong. In 2014 premiums will be same whether or not you have pre-existing condition.

[DefenseLawyer]

79. I obviously missed the part where this reform will set the price for private insurance

Can you point me to the provision that does that?

[COLGATE4]

81. Crickets...

[Hoyt]

82. There can be no differential for pre-existing conditions in 2014. PLUS, there are actually "price

controls" through two mechanisms.

First, an insurer must pay out 85% of premiums in actual benefits starting in 2014 (I think there are some plans where the law allows 80%) -- the other 15% is for administration, profits, and even ridiculous exec bonuses. That'll tighten some things up. Second, when you and I no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions, we will go to the Exchanges and look up premiums. Me -- I'm going to take the plan with the lowest premiums. I think most rational people will do the same since you can cancel one policy and take another without fear of being locked out by pre-existing conditions. Thus, there will be additional downward pressure on premiums among those companies that decide to be competitive or even not-for-profit.

I'd prefer a single payer, but it's not going to happen any time soon. I'm not for throwing out what was achieved in HCR, just because many of us think single payer is better.

Finally, even though there will be downward pressure on premiums, until we change the way health care is delivered -- people are still going to gripe about paying. Actually, there are some innovative provisions in the law that could well change the way care is delivered.

[TheKentuckian]

83. Who is this we that gets to shop the exchange? Most of us are locked out and are

mandated to take whatever our employer servers. If it costs more than 10% of our income we may be eligible for the subsidies. There is no popping onto the exchange and going cheap or changing policies as we desire.

I'm afraid the employer based system is in effect and their is little ramping to allow broad access to the exchanges. They are for the individual market and those without employer based coverage.

Ohh and if the employer drops coverage, their penalty is lower than yours for not having coverage. The best hope is that most employers drop coverage though the system is not designed to handle that in serious numbers as employer coverage is a crucial leg of the stool. There just isn't allocation for that level of subsidies.

Never mind that the subsidized levels are junk insurance with heavy "cost sharing". The plans set up a death panel of one. Most low and modest income folks don't have the money to handle the co-pays and the high co-insurance. Most will struggle to pay the subsidized premiums. The subsidy is to keep the premiums to the percentage of income.

[BlueDemKev]

87. +1,000,000

Well said! Very thoughtful explanation and defense for keeping the Affordable Care Act.

[JVS]

19. Unrec because you eliminate solutions in your OP. HCR is going to have to be done right.

[eilen]

21. Do not allow pre-existing conditions to factor in health insurance

Or eliminate health insurance all together.

Health care is not health insurance.

We can subsidize healthcare with our payroll taxes as is currently done for medicare and medicaid. We can have one system (all current socialized plans into one -- VA, Medicare, Medicaid-- computerized/wired as the VA is; centralized pay as medicare is -- savings negotiated with cost controls on medications, tests, procedures--and that way we can afford a strict fraud unit for providers as well as a well-funded research and development arm.

It is a fallacy that it is necessary to pay more for preexisting conditions when you have so much skimming of profits from insurance companies. Of course it is cost effective to cover everyone. It just means the CEO can't make 20 million in bonuses. This mandate is insurance for health insurance companies, not people.

Edited to add-- this can be done by states themselves. The fed can franchise the model--provide the data, the program, the design-- and the states can operate it themselves. The Dept. of Health can function as a negotiating force to keep prices down, as well as a technical assist/data compiler/quality research, and formalize a process in which suspected fraudsters are turned over to Dept. of Justice after a DOH investigation.

This is not possible with the current crew in Washington but there is an election in 2012. The hard line idealogues will not accomplish much of anything, nevermind healthcare reform. The problem is one of vision and will. Both of which are in short supply at this time.

[dionysus]

27. that sounds awesome, but how do you get that passed?

[eilen]

36. You can start by state.

Look at Vermont. The states are the place to test the care models. So the trick is to get legislation that gives states more flexibility in federal medicare/medicaid/VA funds--with the caveat that states who wish to do this produce detailed proposals to cover their residents in a cost effective, health promoting manner that does not leave out any population.

Now that should have broad appeal.

[dionysus]

37. state by state is the best bet, i like that

[eilen]

42. Yes, and stingy states with crappy models will lose out

-- causes a poor business environment to have the talented and skilled to migrate to healthier states.

[TheKentuckian]

26. A mandate is not a mandate is not a mandate.

The design matters, the current construction is abhorrent because it dictates that most citizens purchase a product sold by for profit companies on the open market at the sole discretion of their employer.

The mandate belongs to the entity with the choice. If you want an employer based system then they are the ones who should have the mandate (and a compelling one that would cost more not to have coverage than it does to provide it) or if you want a individual mandate then the individual should be able to make the election off of the exchange.

The source of failure is that the law attempts to say there is "reform" while leaving the existing system entirely in place. In fact, this Heritage Foundation debacle is designed to preserve the profit centers and stave off efforts at actual structural reform of the system.

The current deal gives us a few pay to play features in exchange for economic servitude, another too big to fail industry, and keeping the cost drivers in place.

This is a stupid and ultimately counter-productive design that should have never been passed.

We failed to even get market based reform, which means we should have admitted we don't have the votes to do ANYTHING broadly beneficial and should fight another day like Presidents and Congress' past have had to admit rather than doing something stupid and setting dangerous precedents to pass "something".

I also don't see what legal restriction there is on passing a law that eliminates pre-existing conditions. If the cartel has a tougher time making money and collapses then so be it. I also think the entire matter is over stated seeing how most folks do not have a pre-existing condition and keep their coverage anyway never knowing when an accident will happen which wouldn't allow you to set up new coverage before the ambulance arrives.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Show proof that the court struck down that aspect of the law.

The pre-existing conditions part. No assumptions allowed, show proof of that. Then we can talk about why you are so married to the 'for profit mandate' rather than the sort the rest of the world uses, which makes it illegal to provide mandated health care products on a for profit basis. Because even if you can convince me that we need A mandate, you still have to convince me that we need THIS mandate, with profit as the first job, and from what I see, no controls on price to speak of.
Not all mandates are the same. This one has the profit aspect which makes it unique in the world, no government has tried to do that in the past.
So why do you think this form of mandate is the best form? Why is the profit going to help those with high costs or pre-existing conditions?

[dsc]

74. they don't have to

once the mandate is gone no one will buy insurance since they can just wait until they are ill and buy it then. That will cause premiums to go up making more people do the same thing and pretty soon only sick people will buy insurance so that it will become only wealthy people who are sick are buying insurance.

[girl gone mad]

86. People will be able to do pretty much the same thing with the mandate in place.

Just pay the fine. The only way to discourage this is to make the penalty very expensive.

[yawnmaster]

38. That doesn't argue for whether its constitutional or not. Eom

[phleshdef]

41. The mandate should have just been called an "Emergency Room Tax". Covered people don't pay it.

Thats basically what it is in a logical sense anyway. If you aren't covered, you pay a 2.5% surtax to cover your emergency room cost risk. If you end up paying your own ER bills, you can use that as a deduction against the tax. If you have coverage, then you are exempt altogether. In practice, thats how this works anyway, but when they wrote the legislation, they did a poor job at figuring out the best way to describe it. They could have acheived pretty much the same result with less punitive language.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. It is not, however, a tax, so they could not say that it was

Words have actual meanings, and considering the mandate is to buy a for profit product, not to pay a tax, they could not make that claim. Even as they wrote it the law is not doing well. This mandate to buy for profit products is unique on Earth, and all of our peer democracies consider it to be a crime to profit from providing a mandated insurance product, and in other countries, it is against the law to profit from such products. So it is not all about looking to name it 'The Blue Skies Initiative' or something. A rose by any other name.
People who go to an emergency room now are billed, and they pay if they can, because if they don't it is treated just as any other unpaid bill would be treated, sent to collections, the whole thing. The Republican version of that scenario is not a full picture of the reality.

[phleshdef]

45. The "punishment" IS a tax. So they absolutely could have made that claim and can still make it.

You are absolutely incapable of disproving my logic on this.

Telling people they have to have something or pay a tax on it is no different than raising a tax on everyone and telling people if they have something they are exempt from it. The end result is exactly the same. In both of those scenarios, people who are covered don't pay the tax, people who aren't and are above a certain income do. When you combine that with the pre-healthcare law situation, where all taxpayers have been paying a hidden tax on unpaid emergency room costs all along, there is no reason they could not have made their argument in exactly the way I have described and got the same end result they were looking to achieve.

[Modern_Matthew]

46. What about people living paycheck to paycheck that are determined they can "afford" insurance?

Why should they have to give up anything to acquire insurance? Not right.

[Hoyt]

78. The reform legislation offers plenty of subsidies.

[TheKentuckian]

84. The legislation acknowledges that there will be those who there are not enough subsidies

to bring some folks to 10% of income and they will receive not care but an exemption from the penalty.

This ignores that some people will be put into a damn hard place by being dictated they pay 10% of their pittance but won't qualify for Medicaid (if anyone does by the time the states hack the program to death trying to cut spending).

"Plenty" means what to you exactly? Hell, if too many employers drop coverage the whole house of cards will come crashing down. That little 750 dollar per employee fine is not about to make up the shortfall. In fact, if employers reduce their contribution levels too much, there is no pool of money ready to subsidize the short fall to keep us at 10%.

[Odin2005]

47. SINGLE PAYER

[Creideiki]

48. Replace "many" with "all"

[lynne]

49. Your question is a good one but it does not change the constitution -

- which is what the decision was based on. Something else will have to be amended to allow for pre-existing condition coverage or the constitution will have to be amended to allow for the government to mandate individuals to purchase a specific item of commerce. Ignoring and bending the constitution to fit laws or groups at will is not an option.

[quiller4]

92. You presume that this appeals court verdict will stand but that

is not the concensus of legal opinion.

[Bluerthanblue]

50. good question- I'm not one of those applauding the decision,

but it is interesting hearing the responses.

[Motown_Johnny]

54. I think you are confused

We support the mandate being removed as a stand alone clause.


The regulations on the insurance companies are not in the same clause.


If the mandate is struck down as a stand alone clause then the insurance companies will suddenly be in favor of expanding government health care programs. Once we take that money out of their pockets everything changes.

[BlueDemKev]

59. +1,000,000,000,000

Exactly.

[yardwork]

60. The mandate is unconstitutional and never should have been part of the deal.

It was poorly conceived to begin with and stupid to attach coverage of pre-existing conditions to an unconstitutional and politically unenforceable mandate.

Not my fault that the legislation was poorly written.

[leeroysphitz]

61. Real healthcare reform? n/t

[WillyT]

80. I've Always Thought The Only Way TO Mandate Health Insurance Was By Having A Public Option...

The Public Option gives a person an out from BEING FORCED TO BUY PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE.

You give me that option, then I'm fine with a mandate, but without the PO, no fucking way.

:shrug:

[WinkyDink]

85. Who is this "we", White Man? The PROBLEM is PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE.

I don't support bending the Constitution to maintain that system. Sorry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. How do you propose that people with preexisting conditions get coverage?

1. Realize that corporations are supposed to obey laws, not laws obey corporations.

2. Decree that it is illegal to reject people for preexisting conditions

No other country seems to think that this is a problem.

[grahamhgreen]

89. You just get rid of the mandate, but force them to cover pre-existing. They can

Still charge 4x the normal rate.

If they are unable to compete, institute medicare for all or a PO.

Right?

[SwampG8r]

90. why tie pre existing conditions to a "buy some insurance from my friends mandate"

was not needed
pre existing conditions could be banned all by themselves