http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-28/justices-suggest-other-parts-of-health-law-may-be-thrown-out-1-.html

After what I've been reading and seeing today, I am now of the opinion that the entire thing will be thrown out. Given the fact that it has taken nearly 20 years for each attempt to do some sort of health care reform, a lot of those 18-26 year-olds will be entering middle age, where chronic health problems first appear, before the next attempt comes up. I can only imagine how expensive it will be for them to get coverage.

In a few years I will be eligible for Medicare. Given the political atmosphere of today, actually having Medicare available is not a sure bet by any means.

The only constant in all of this is that those who can afford it will have good health care coverage. Those who don't will either do without or require the rest of you to pay for it. The individual mandate was designed to spread out the cost so that the uninsured didn't drive up the costs for those who had coverage. Apparently a lot of people like that just fine. Well, if things bear out as I think they will we will be right back to that same old system.

If we could government out of the health care industry, and trial lawyers out of the health care industry, and businesses out of providing for health care benefits, then people could buy their own health insurance and spend their own health care dollars directly with the providers they choose ............ and costs would come crashing down.

At least Donald Verrilli can always take solace in the fact that he has a sweet mustache.



Oh well if it gets overturned, our mostly private health insurance system will still be the most inefficient and ineffective in the world and more and more businesses will be dumping insurance coverage and perhaps we will get single-payer or a state by state public option system.

It is of course funny after all because none of these Republican Attorneys Generals would have even challenged the law had Mitt Romney won in 08 and passed the same thing (which he would have) as both democrats and republicans would have voted for it. Equally amazing that BHO and the democrats are so scared of arguing that its a "tax" because it will hurt them politically.

BHO should have just gone for Single Payer instead of thinking Republicans would be willing to support the idea they created and help a Muslim Neo-Colonialist Marxist get anything done.

I think my favorite part of the arguments was when Justice Kennedy invoked the idea that they must be referring to a "hypothetical congress" if we're talking about them getting anything done to fix the law if they don't throw the whole thing out.

QuakerOats;1130224 wrote:If we could government out of the health care industry, and trial lawyers out of the health care industry, and businesses out of providing for health care benefits, then people could buy their own health insurance and spend their own health care dollars directly with the providers they choose ............ and costs would come crashing down.

Lol, No. Please see Neo-Classical Economist (Read Conservative) Kenneth Arrow on the Economics of Healthcare

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf


Health Care Markets aren't like markets for Bread or T.V.'s (I hear they got a great deal on Chemo at St. V's!). Unregulated Markets do not work in health care because of information asymmetry, unpredictability, barriers to entry, etc. Even a Health Savings Account is a market distortion/intervention by the government into the free market. The Swiss and Massachusetts have had strong success with largely private, for-profit provided health insurance with individual mandates and guaranteed issue but alas.

The PPACA is the last, best hope for privately provided health insurance in the U.S.A. where we can all benefit from the competition and innovation of private enterprize but oh well.

Manhattan Buckeye;1129803 wrote:"particularly those 18-26 folks whose coverage on their parents' plans will simply go away"

These 18-26 folks don't need a Cadillac health insurance plan, just a catastrophic coverage underwriting. No one between 18-26 needs more than a yearly check-up, and whatever birth control they wish to purchase. With co-pays there is no reason why a healthy 26 year old should spend more than $500 per annum. If they want to insure against a catastrophic accident or disease, the premium should be very cheap. They shouldn't be lumped into a public option that puts them in the same actuary category as a 70-year old.

Good post.

BoatShoes;1130229 wrote:At least Donald Verrilli can always take solace in the fact that he has a sweet mustache.



Oh well if it gets overturned, our mostly private health insurance system will still be the most inefficient and ineffective in the world and more and more businesses will be dumping insurance coverage and perhaps we will get single-payer or a state by state public option system.

It is of course funny after all because none of these Republican Attorneys Generals would have even challenged the law had Mitt Romney won in 08 and passed the same thing (which he would have) as both democrats and republicans would have voted for it. Equally amazing that BHO and the democrats are so scared of arguing that its a "tax" because it will hurt them politically.

BHO should have just gone for Single Payer instead of thinking Republicans would be willing to support the idea they created and help a Muslim Neo-Colonialist Marxist get anything done.

I think my favorite part of the arguments was when Justice Kennedy invoked the idea that they must be referring to a "hypothetical congress" if we're talking about them getting anything done to fix the law if they don't throw the whole thing out.

If it is so ineffective why do wealthy people from around the world flock here for medical procedures? Why do we have some of the highest life expectancies in the world?

dwccrew;1130249 wrote: If it is so ineffective why do wealthy people from around the world flock here for medical procedures? Why do we have some of the highest life expectancies in the world?

Here comes the warped notion that equity of availability somehow is related to quality. It's an argument by idiots who have nothing else.

Bottom line, no one that isn't a complete fool would want to be treated in any other country.

queencitybuckeye;1130440 wrote:Here comes the warped notion that equity of availability somehow is related to quality. It's an argument by idiots who have nothing else.

Bottom line, no one that isn't a complete fool would want to be treated in any other country.

Clearly our healthcare system is ineffective and inefficient though.

dwccrew;1130442 wrote:Clearly our healthcare system is ineffective and inefficient though.

The latter can be argued. The former cannot unless one is unconcerned about how foolish they look.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304177104577310050863533554.html?KEYWORDS=trautwein

dwccrew;1130442 wrote:Clearly our healthcare system is ineffective and inefficient though.

It may or may not be "inefficient", but it is without a doubt, highly effective.

The RNC hits a homer with the administration's solicitor general as their spokesman - http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/29/brutal-rnc-ad-demolishes-obamacare-supreme-court

queencitybuckeye;1130478 wrote:The latter can be argued. The former cannot unless one is unconcerned about how foolish they look.

Hmmm...

QuakerOats;1130852 wrote:It may or may not be "inefficient", but it is without a doubt, highly effective.

I now see what you mean.

Yeah, after reading reports of oral arguments, this is not looking good for Obamacare. It'll be interesting to see whether they just strike down the mandate, or whether they eliminate the entire thing. How can you pass a 2,700-page law and forget to put a severability clause in there?

I think it's because the individual mandate is supposed to be the factor to keep premiums down. Without everyone buying in the insured will have to foot the bill for the uninsured. Kinda like car insurance, but health-care-related.

I don't think it survives without the individual mandate.

fan_from_texas;1130940 wrote:Yeah, after reading reports of oral arguments, this is not looking good for Obamacare. It'll be interesting to see whether they just strike down the mandate, or whether they eliminate the entire thing. How can you pass a 2,700-page law and forget to put a severability clause in there?

[Insert Nancy Pelosi joke here]

If they strike down the IM, how long before Romneycare is challenged on the same grounds? And how has Romneycare survived this long without a challenge anyhow?

fish82;1130951 wrote:[Insert Nancy Pelosi joke here]

You know, I was going to say "We have to pass this bill so that we can see what's in it.", but I got confused as to whether it was Obamacare or the Stimulus.

stlouiedipalma;1130952 wrote:If they strike down the IM, how long before Romneycare is challenged on the same grounds? And how has Romneycare survived this long without a challenge anyhow?

Romneycare is not based on the idea of Interstate commerce. The Tenth Amendment allows the States to do pretty much whatever they want provided they don't violate another part of the U.S. Constitution. Whether Romneycare violates the Massachusetts Constitution or not is for a Massachusetts court to decide, not SCOTUS.

Thank you for clearing that up.

stlouiedipalma;1130952 wrote:If they strike down the IM, how long before Romneycare is challenged on the same grounds? And how has Romneycare survived this long without a challenge anyhow?

The States have a Police Power so there is almost no doubt that Romneycare is Constitutional.

queencitybuckeye;1130440 wrote:Here comes the warped notion that equity of availability somehow is related to quality. It's an argument by idiots who have nothing else.

Bottom line, no one that isn't a complete fool would want to be treated in any other country.

Perhaps "ineffective" was not the right word but as you at least seem to indicate our health insurance system is definitely ineffective for millions of americans...even many of those who weren't free loaders and happened to have insurance have still been ruined by an illness. I suppose that maybe goes to "inefficiency" rather than "ineffectiveness" but language games are silliness. Our system is not very effective for the many people who have diligently paid premiums, were not free-loaders like the plaintiff in the SCOTUS case and were still denied coverage, unjustifiably, and ruined and denied access to that quality care. But, whatev brosky. The ACA gave us a real chance to make the system more effective for non-rich Americans while retaining the quality that comes from private competition.

And it seems to me that the Constitutional Argument could easily be articulated. You see better defenses for it in various op-eds floating around.

"It has long been within the Congress' Commerce Power to Regulate Insurance. Congress has an interest in Regulating Health Insurance Markets from denying coverage based upon pre-existing conditions because such practices in the aggregate have substantially affected interstate health insurance markets (guaranteed Issue). The Individual Mandate is a Necessary and Proper Regulatory Scheme for enforcing guaranteed issue as it will prevent free loaders and exploding costs from guaranteed coverage and blah blah blah"

Scalia of course said it may be necessary but its not proper but one would hope the argument could have at least been articulated rather than shat down the Solicitor General's leg.

queencitybuckeye;1130440 wrote:
Bottom line, no one that isn't a complete fool would want to be treated in any other country.

Must be plenty of fools out there. Thousands leave the US every year for treatment elsewhere. We're talking major $hit here too...cancer, heart disease, transplants, et al. And for the record, the US ranks about 19th internationally.

queencitybuckeye;1130478 wrote:The latter can be argued. The former cannot unless one is unconcerned about how foolish they look.

QuakerOats;1130852 wrote:It may or may not be "inefficient", but it is without a doubt, highly effective.

Clearly you two are unfamiliar with sarcasm. Did you not see my post questioning BS and his claim that the healthcare system is ineffective and inefficient?