Congress has the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce, not force individuals to enter private contracts with insurance companies in the first place.

Scalia made a good point about automobiles. If a large number of people stop buying cars, that means higher prices for everyone else, doesn't it? So why not regulate that people must buy a car?

BoatShoes was right about the Democrats insisting this penalty is not a tax. If they had set it up as a revenue-raising tax and gone Single Payer there would be no Constitutionality issues (based on earlier Court precedents). Whether they would've got the votes for it is another issue.

jhay78;1131176 wrote:Congress has the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce, not force individuals to enter private contracts with insurance companies in the first place.

Scalia made a good point about automobiles. If a large number of people stop buying cars, that means higher prices for everyone else, doesn't it? So why not regulate that people must buy a car?

BoatShoes was right about the Democrats insisting this penalty is not a tax. If they had set it up as a revenue-raising tax and gone Single Payer there would be no Constitutionality issues (based on earlier Court precedents). Whether they would've got the votes for it is another issue.

First of all, It is not common for Courts to use such logical extremes to justify striking down provisions of laws. For instance, Congress has the power to draft you to fight a war...that means they could draft you indefinitely like some governments have done...therefore, for how long can't congress draft you??? Draft must be unconstitutional.

The Income Tax could be raised to 100% of income and in fact almost was once...therefore the income tax must be unconstitutional.

Second of all, there is no widespread problem in the automobile markets substantially affecting interstate commerce and commanding people to eat broccoli would have marginal effects on improving interstate healthcare markets. Literally the Supreme Court conservatives have been swept into frenzied Tea Party reasoning. The Congress has imposed nationalized rationing before in a time of war.

Massive instances of private health insurers denying coverage to people who paid premiums for pre-existing conditions has substantially affected our health insurance markets. People not eating broccoli has not.

Additionally, It doesn't really fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and its government. The government can draft you against your will and send you off to die in a faraway place or take away your liberty if you don't go.

And my gosh, Broccoli and Car Market pricing is based on production scale and not risk pooling like health insurance markets...a point totally misunderstood by the justices and general Verrilli and you apparently.

A healthy person sitting in his living room playing vidja games choosing not to purchase health insurance causes the average cost of the risk pool to go up. This is unique fact of an insurance market. That same person choosing not to buy a car or broccoli causes the average price of a car or broccoli to drop. The impact of "inactivity" in a health insurance market is automatic and actuarial and that is the limiting principal that prevents the government from making you buy a car or broccoli.

There is an amicus brief on file that makes this very point.

BoatShoes;1130229 wrote: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.

If you really believe that then you're a fucking moron.

Footwedge;1131169 wrote: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.

Why do they go elsewhere? Is it so they can get better quality care/procedures, or is it so they can get treatments cheaper and/or not approved here? Me thinks the latter for the most part.

The study I remember us being 19th in was full of misleading criteria iirc. Things were included like different methods of categorizing live/stillbirth, and measured the effectiveness of the overall HC system, not the specifics related to quality/technology/innovation in providing actual patient care.

sjmvsfscs08;1131220 wrote:If you really believe that then you're a fucking moron.

Is that right? Of all the strange things said around here you choose this to be so abrasive? Oh well, I suppose I will make my case.

Romney, indeed lobbied for President Obama to model healthcare reform after his own model. Which, Barack Obama did indeed do. With such emphasis made on healthcare in the 08 Presidential debates, you can be sure that Romney would have proposed essentially the same act. Additionally, just like Republicans passed the No Child Left Behind Act and President Bush's socialist expansion of medicare, you can be sure they would have signed onto Romneycare saying it turned a person's healthcare into a responsibility and not a right...just like they had argued for the previous several decades.

But would a Tea Party State Attorney General have challenged it? No.

Michelle Bachmann is standing outside of the Supreme Court all week decrying Obamacare as the descent into Socialism. Well, find me a Republican Attorney General that challenged the No Child Left Behind Act Which was Actually Socialist. You will find zero. Find me a Republican Attorney General that challenged the expansion of Medicare, an actual socialist program, that took place in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. You will find zero.

Let's compare that...zero challenges to actual socialism vs. 26 challenges to a law that was the Republican's "Private Solution to Universal Coverage" for almost 30 years.

What is the Key Difference? The Little Capital Letter next to the name of the man occupying the Presidency.

Obamacare and all of its major provisions, the Medicare advisory board (death panels) and the individual mandate were good Republican ideas created by Conservatives and Obama like a fool believed Republicans would reason with him and support their very own creation. Why would they agree to anything that a secret Muslim Unconstitutional President dead set on destroying capitalism would propose? Hillary would have known better.

fish82;1131225 wrote:Why do they go elsewhere? Is it so they can get better quality care/procedures, or is it so they can get treatments cheaper and/or not approved here? Me thinks the latter for the most part.

The study I remember us being 19th in was full of misleading criteria iirc. Things were included like different methods of categorizing live/stillbirth, and measured the effectiveness of the overall HC system, not the specifics related to quality/technology/innovation in providing actual patient care.

Absolutely cost plays a major role. No argument here. But it's more than cost. People go to India to have their ticker changed out because those fuggers know how to do surgeries.

American "exceptionalism" is not exclusive anymore in America when it comes to quality...in the health care field. Look it up.

BoatShoes;1131241 wrote:Is that right? Of all the strange things said around here you choose this to be so abrasive? Oh well, I suppose I will make my case.

Romney, indeed lobbied for President Obama to model healthcare reform after his own model. Which, Barack Obama did indeed do. With such emphasis made on healthcare in the 08 Presidential debates, you can be sure that Romney would have proposed essentially the same act. Additionally, just like Republicans passed the No Child Left Behind Act and President Bush's socialist expansion of medicare, you can be sure they would have signed onto Romneycare saying it turned a person's healthcare into a responsibility and not a right...just like they had argued for the previous several decades.

But would a Tea Party State Attorney General have challenged it? No.

Michelle Bachmann is standing outside of the Supreme Court all week decrying Obamacare as the descent into Socialism. Well, find me a Republican Attorney General that challenged the No Child Left Behind Act Which was Actually Socialist. You will find zero. Find me a Republican Attorney General that challenged the expansion of Medicare, an actual socialist program, that took place in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. You will find zero.

Let's compare that...zero challenges to actual socialism vs. 26 challenges to a law that was the Republican's "Private Solution to Universal Coverage" for almost 30 years.

What is the Key Difference? The Little Capital Letter next to the name of the man occupying the Presidency.

Obamacare and all of its major provisions, the Medicare advisory board (death panels) and the individual mandate were good Republican ideas created by Conservatives and Obama like a fool believed Republicans would reason with him and support their very own creation. Why would they agree to anything that a secret Muslim Unconstitutional President dead set on destroying capitalism would propose? Hillary would have known better.

Yup...the idea that R's haven't been complicit in expanding socialism is quite ridiculous. I would add that Bush the 43rd did a lot of bragging about the record number of first time home owners under his watch during a couple of his SOTU speeches as well. Those first time home owners were in homes under socialist programs as well.

Footwedge;1131324 wrote:Absolutely cost plays a major role. No argument here. But it's more than cost. People go to India to have their ticker changed out because those fuggers know how to do surgeries.

American "exceptionalism" is not exclusive anymore in America when it comes to quality...in the health care field. Look it up.

Those fuggers also know how to answer phones.

majorspark;1131362 wrote:Those fuggers also know how to answer phones.

Reputations.

majorspark;1131362 wrote:Those fuggers also know how to answer phones.

Well...not really. lol

Footwedge;1131169 wrote: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.

People only leave the US for major stuff when they are terminal and want to try an experimental treatment that has not yet passed FDA yet.

Your 19th ranking is based on a health care level per dollar spent ratio NOT in level of care. If it was purely level of care and expertise, the US would be #1.

Unfortunately the US eats 90% of all R&D costs of medicine for the whole world, which is what drives up our costs. Since all the liberals want to be so much like Europe, lets force them to fork over some cash for medical research and you will see our costs go down.

BoatShoes;1131199 wrote: The Income Tax could be raised to 100% of income and in fact almost was once...therefore the income tax must be unconstitutional.

.

False, the top MARGINAL rate was once 94%. You are smart enough to know that 94% marginal rate does NOT equal 94% of income like you insinuated.

Don't mislead Boat, either that was a bad omission mistake by you, or you meant to mislead.

Footwedge;1131324 wrote:Absolutely cost plays a major role. No argument here. But it's more than cost. People go to India to have their ticker changed out because those fuggers know how to do surgeries.

American "exceptionalism" is not exclusive anymore in America when it comes to quality...in the health care field. Look it up.

No one goes to India for quality, have you ever been outside of the U.S.? Do you even have a passport? India is a slum. I know, I was there a few weeks ago.

The United States has the world's best health care, there isn't even a second place. The closest thing to second place is Singapore and you have to carry a Visa and be out of there once your medical tourism is over. They actually control their borders, although being an island that helps out.

The best doctors are in the U.S. Most pharma is based out of the U.S. Certainly the UK, Japan, Germany and Switzerland have advanced pharma products, but they need to carry the Western Hemisphere market.

This is why ObamaKare is so ridiculous, we're going to nationalize a system that we're actually good at, so we can screw it up with our inefficient and idiotic government? That doesn't make sense.

Manhattan Buckeye;1131486 wrote:No one goes to India for quality, have you ever been outside of the U.S.? Do you even have a passport? India is a slum. I know, I was there a few weeks ago.

The United States has the world's best health care, there isn't even a second place. The closest thing to second place is Singapore and you have to carry a Visa and be out of there once your medical tourism is over. They actually control their borders, although being an island that helps out.

The best doctors are in the U.S. Most pharma is based out of the U.S. Certainly the UK, Japan, Germany and Switzerland have advanced pharma products, but they need to carry the Western Hemisphere market.

This is why ObamaKare is so ridiculous, we're going to nationalize a system that we're actually good at, so we can screw it up with our inefficient and idiotic government? That doesn't make sense.

You and Jmog are way off base. The US care for patients has slipped dramatically over the past decades whereby, quite frankly, we now stink....in many areas. For those that think that Americans flee to avoid FDA regulations...in finding a miracle cure for a terminal illness, use your google button and learn.

Here is a link from an author at the American Journal of Medicine. Our healthcare leaves pl;enty to be desired.

"Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

....And this little ditty....

"Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. The 2010 edition includes data from the seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

...And this....

"The old standby fear-mongering that “a government bureaucrat will decide your healthcare” can easily be countered with the fact that WE ALREADY HAVE BUREAUCRATS DECIDING OUR HEALTHCARE — INSURANCE COMPANY BUREAUCRATS — and they do not have our best interests at heart, but rather the health of the company."

http://lauraschneider.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/where-does-america-rank-in-healthcare-quality-and-efficiency/


The actual care we receive has become very substandard in comparison to other countries in the global economy. There is no such thing as "American exceptionalism" here in the states. Just another ruse created by those in charge of the health care cash registers.

Talk to the docs...they will ALL confirm that care is in the dumpster.

Just a quick question for those in the know. If Obama-care is so great why are there countless doctors who will be closing their practice if it's passed?

There's definitely some arguments to be made for Obamacare, or something like it. That is, if I thought the govt could provide a net benefit.

Obviously it's not just the US govt that's fallen for IOU disease. Once these career politicians discovered deficit spending they truly came into their glory. I think were seeing the next bubble forming - US debt. And ALL taxpayers (including the ones who don't pay taxes) will be left holding the bag...again.

"ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy."

You realize in your buffoonish position that the U.S. has higher standards? What the U.S. details mortality much of the developing markets consider pig waste. Forgive the U.S. if it tries to save a child that is born with health defects. In many other countries it's considered a sunk cost.

India, really? Do you have a passport? Have you been outside the U.S.?

Footwedge;1131550 wrote:....And this little ditty....

"Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. The 2010 edition includes data from the seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

You know, posting biased private funded PACs doesn't help your position. Australia? Australia healthcare is godawful. I've been to Australia, I know Australian doctors. They don't even have enough dentists to provide the routine checkups the poorest person in the U.S. takes for granted.

Where do you get your newsfeed?

Footwedge;1131169 wrote: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.

Yes, people for whom traditional medicine has no hope of a cure will often leave the county to try nearly kind of alternative "treatment". With the possibility of one or two outliers, these people are charlatans who do nothing more than take that person's remaining bank balance. For every such person, thousands come to the U.S. from every country on the planet for real treatment.

I've never seen a study that ranks the U.S. that low that doesn't have an equity component (i.e. a political statement, not a scientific one). It's the effective vs. efficient argument again. Two separate concepts that they dishonestly lump together to "prove" their argument.

"I've never seen a study that ranks the U.S. that low that doesn't have an equity component (i.e. a political statement, not a scientific one)."

Indeed, because it doesn't exist. Medical tourism exists, but it ain't Americans going to India, or Australia. Or the UK. It is people from socialist countries that go to Singapore, or Dubai for proper health care. No one cares that Scandinavian countries have the best mortality rate if they don't count aborted children if they have some sort of health issue.

The U.S., bar none, has the best health care available in the world. It isn't even close. The worst hospital in the crappiest city in the U.S. is likely better than the best hospital in any other world city.

jmog;1131460 wrote:False, the top MARGINAL rate was once 94%. You are smart enough to know that 94% marginal rate does NOT equal 94% of income like you insinuated.

Don't mislead Boat, either that was a bad omission mistake by you, or you meant to mislead.

You really have seemed to miss the point I was making. I was in no way referring to the efficacy of the high marginal rates with regard to revenue raising.

I'm referring to the fact that Supreme Court Justices were suggesting that the requirement to purchase health insurance may be unconstitutional because, as it has been suggested, based on the principle that permits Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance, Congress might also require people to purchase broccoli in that very remote hypothetical scenario.

"Some socialist might require us to come along and by broccoli, buy a gym membership, buy a cell phone, etc. etc."

Yet, you could apply such logical extremes to taxation, for instance saying; "If Congress has the power to tax 1% of your income for social insurance...they might also pass a law taxing 100% of the taxpayer's income and redistribute it to a social insurance fund, which seems untenable. Therefore, The tax as a whole must be unconstitutional because of some remote potential consequence in the future.

^That is the same type of reductio reasoning people are applying to the individual mandate.

You could also apply this same type of reasoning to any number of things that the Court has ruled Constitutional...like conscription.

When I said Congress has raised the Top Marginal Rate that high it was simply to point out Congress has pushed the income tax to that extreme at one point to pay for the war and yet that even as it got close to the logical extreme, that doesn't make it in and of itself unconstitutional. But, what is our limiting principle? It is the Separation of Powers and the Political Process created by James Madison and the boys wherein the electorate can vehemently punish any legislator who attempts to raise taxes up to that type of level just like they would punish a legislature that tried to mandate the purchase of broccoli.

Congress already takes our money and purchases our healthcare for us in Medicare. Requiring us to Purchase it as opposed to taking our money and requiring us to use what they buy for us is a distinction without much true fundamental difference. At least here we would get a choice from private competitors in a marketplace. Congress has the power under the commerce clause allegedly to take your money over the course of your life and force you to accept socialized single-payer health insurance upon reaching retirement age. Requiring people to buy their own health insurance; as opposed to taking their money and buying it for them is hardly a substantive difference; It is merely a difference in form rather than substance. If one is proper and there's such little substantive difference I personally just don't see how the other isn't proper but maybe I'm an idiot.

All I know is that if I advised a client to pull of a transaction with similar niceties the IRS and the tax court would laugh in my face and go with Substance over Form all day long.

If the people don't want Obamacare let them elect a Republican government and repeal it.

BoatShoes;1131758 wrote: If the people don't want Obamacare let them elect a Republican government and repeal it.

No need, the court is going to take care of it.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120330/D9TQLQDO0.html