Supreme Court Obamacare Case -- Pros and Cons

So we've had day one of the opening arguments.One of the arguments I've heard for upholding the healthcare law is that healthcare involves interstate commerce, and the federal gov't has the right to regulate interstate commerce.That healthcare is interstate commerce should be readily apparent to anyone, especially anyone who has traveled to other states and received healthcare.I also live in RI but have paid Blue Cross Blue Shield to an address in Massachusetts: that would seem to me to meet the definition of interstate commerce.I have NOT heard any strong arguments against the law, just political outrage and posturing.I've heard it called a tax, but I don't see how it fits that description when you can chose your coverage and the amount you pay.Anyone care to enlighten me on what the beef is against this bill? What is the court case, not personal opinions and feelings.(I'm not saying it is the best bill that could be written (ie make it single payer, or just expand medicare to cover everyone while letting people choose their "gap" coverages), but what is constitutionally wrong with the bill as written ... especially when compared to laws like the patriot act?).Enjoy.

It looks like the tax question is being dismissed by the court:http://www.washingtonpost.com/...03/26/gIQA5lk0bS_story.html

quote:

---

The court began the first of three days of oral arguments on the 2010 law by examining a statute that keeps courts from hearing tax challenges before they go into effect. But the justices’ questions indicated skepticism that the penalties prescribed for those who do not buy health insurance by 2014 amount to taxes under the 1867 law forbidding tax challenges.

---

The next question regards the "individual mandate"

quote:

---

The court began the first of three days of oral arguments on the 2010 law by examining a statute that keeps courts from hearing tax challenges before they go into effect. But the justices’ questions indicated skepticism that the penalties prescribed for those who do not buy health insurance by 2014 amount to taxes under the 1867 law forbidding tax challenges.

---

This was also a part of Romneycare, and is necessary to funding the care provided under that law.We've also seen that Mass covers healthcare for emergency room visits from people out of state -- again showing that we are dealing with interstate commerce.If we had universal healthcare then everyone would de facto have an individual mandate to be covered.What's the beef?Enjoy.

Hi Perdition, And when people don't have insurance they get aid from the hospital and the state to cover some of the costs if they can't pay it.

quote:

---

http://news.yahoo.com/...obama-healthcare-law-040313360.html

​

In the United States, annual healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product, or $8,402 for every man, woman and child

---

What this doesn't show is the cost of untreated illnesses etc, behavior that impacts business and other people.I also read in the Boston Globe today that a hospital near New Hampshire had ~10% of it's budget unpaid emergency care for people from out of state.Enjoy

Hi again Perdition, So let them purchase insurance with $10,000.00 deductibles and pay a modest premium.The other issue is that some medical costs are high so that part of this money can be used to write off those uninsured cases.This bill isn't perfect, but it is a necessary step forward.I also think that we should have a change to Medicare, to lower the age requirement by a year every year, and cover children, starting with newborns and increasing the age covered by a year every year, letting people purchase policies to cover those parts of healthcare not currentlyh covered.We should also have a single payer system.Finally I think that all health industries should be non-profit, rather than have leaches benefiting from the misfortunes of others.Enjoy.

Hi Taq And yet you aren't forced to by any specific product.Part of the problem comes when people from one state use healthcare (ie emergeny room care) from another state without paying for it (or paying in full), putting costs onto other people.Part of the problem comes from the health insurance companies being multistate and multinational rather than regional. My premium last year was paid to an address in another state, so it did not benefit the economy in my state.The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.For instance they can regulate the sale of marijuana ... preventing me from buying it even though my state allows use for medical purposes.Enjoy

Hi Taq, But it's not a tax, it's a penalty. The same kind of penalty if you don't pay taxes, but a penalty rather than a tax.You could say it is a $0.00 tax that is offset by a deductible for purchasing health insurance, but with a penalty if there is no deduction taken.Enjoy.

Hi Taq,Politician lawyer types like to use language to argue points either way. There is a precedent for the mandate:Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

quote:

---

In July of 1798, Congress passed — and President John Adams signed - An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

​

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

​

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

​

... it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

---

So there was a penalty if you didn't pay: you couldn't work as a sailor.Enjoy.

Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - CBS News

quote:

---

Supreme Court majority skeptical on health care law

​

In the fight over President Obama's health care law, this was the main event. On Tuesday, the nine justices of the Supreme Court heard arguments on the part of the law that requires all Americans to have health insurance or pay a fine. It's called the individual mandate. The Obama administration said that the mandate will make sure everyone has health care while keeping insurance affordable. Opponents say it's a dangerous new power for the government by forcing citizens to buy a product.

---

Yet they did just that in 1798 ... ... when many of the founding fathers were still walking talking and participating in the US Government. So there is no question about precedent OR what the founding fathers would think.

quote:

---

All four of the court's liberal justices defended the law. In one exchange, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tossed a friendly question to the administration's top lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

​

"I thought a major, major point of your argument was that the people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do," she said.

---

And that a patchwork system of states is not sufficient to fairly distribute the costs of our corporation owned healthcare.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : qs layer

Hi Jon, Personally I would be astonished that it was not known about, but I do find it curious that there is not a lot of discussion about it.Meanwhile we see the public opinion polls show general support:

quote:

---

PBS: Court of Public Opinion Weighs In on Health Care Reform Law

​

CBS News/New York Times poll found that two-thirds of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn some or all of the law, but the survey also showed strong support for individual pieces included in the measure.

​

Nearly 40 percent said they wished to see the court turn back the entire law, with 29 percent expressing support for overturning the requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a fine.

​

Other mandates were far more popular, with 85 percent of respondents saying they favored the law's requirement that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions. Sixty-eight percent, meanwhile, backed the provision allowing individuals up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health plans.

​

A CNN survey released Monday revealed similar findings, with 23 percent of respondents saying to leave the law as is, 43 percent wanting to overturn some of its provisions and 30 percent hoping the court would reject the overhaul in its entirety.

​

A survey by Pew Research Center indicated little has changed since President Obama signed the law two years ago, with 47 percent of Americans approving of it and 45 percent disapproving. The individual mandate is more unpopular. The poll showed 56 percent of the public disapproves of that foundation of the law.

​

(To the question of which political party can do a better job dealing with health care, 49 percent said Democratic, while 35 percent said Republican.)

---

You'll note that the opinions are much more favorable when the individual parts are polled than when it is just the whole package. Cognitive dissonance anyone?Enjoy.

Hi again Taq, So we will need to wait until June.However it is nice to see how fully prepared the justices are:Does Antonin Scalia Know What's in the Affordable Care Law?

quote:

---

The deal that Scalia was referring to -- legendary in conservative anti-Obamacare circles -- was not a classic "kickback." Nelson negotiated for indefinite, unending Medicaid funding for his state. That ended up as part of the bill that initially passed the U.S. Senate on a 60-40 vote.

​

Here's the rub: It's not actually part of the law. Democrats removed the Nebraska deal in the final tortured negotiations that passed the PPACA in the House. When it got to the Senate again, Democrats only needed 51 votes to pass it; Nelson, who'd gotten the bad press from the deal AND nothing to show for it, glumly voted no.

---

Of course he has probably made up his mind before hand, so he doesn't need to pay attention.Enjoy.