part of healthcare reform declared unconstitutional

[jd1138]

The part that says if you can afford healthcare, you have to buy it. Well, how about just having it to where if you can afford it but don't want to pay for it (even though it'll be at a much fairer price even if you have pre-existing conditions), then if you show up at a hospital ill, you better have a checkbook with you to pre-pay for services.

I read all the comments below the story on Yahoo. Most seemed like a ravenous bunch of morons, shouting that Obama is a socialist and is going to be systematically defeated. One fool compared Obama to Hitler and that "Hitler also tried to shove healthcare down people's throats." Um, Germany has had universal healthcare since the 1880's, it was already in place when Hitler took power.

I hope the healthcare system progress stays on track. It's actually going to save more money than cost money. The US spends twice what Canada spends on healthcare, per capita, and Canada's people live longer and have just as good of patient outcomes for diseases like cancer. Healthcare should be a universal right. Americans seem to want to fight a lot of progress, under the guise of hating socialism/communism. It's like they're fighting for the right to be a serf with gov't representation owned by special interests and corporations. Man, pick your battles. You have the right to do just about everything in this country already, why fight for the right to pay twice as much for healthcare and have a diminished life expectnancy?

[tokenuser]

Somewhat ironic that the Federal judge would have a health plan administered by the United States Office of Personnel Management - an organization that is run in a way similar to the proposed health care reform (managed competition).

I wonder how he'd feel if he had to pay the full cost of healthcare?

[jd1138]

So true. That judge will never have to worry about healthcare. His copays are probably $100 even to have open heart surgery. Those federal health plans are extremely cushy. Empathy is rare amongst the people who have it made.

[phatlip]

I never cared for this provision of the bill to be honest with you. I sort of agree with the judge. I don't see how the government has the right to force people to pay for private services. I like the idea of a single payer system, but this is a shitty attempt at providing universal coverage without having such a system. There's a difference between being required to pay taxes to provide for a service, and paying a for profit corporation money for services. I mean, come on. One minute Obama is telling us how evil the health insurance companies are. The next they're the solution and we're now FORCED to pay them.

That and it seems to defeat the entire point of the health care bill. The problem was that people didn't have insurance because they couldn't afford it. Forcing someone to pay for something they can't afford is counterproductive. What about people who still can't afford healthcare even after being subsidized? The only way this works is through a single payer system.

Overall, I think most of this health care law was a waste of time. It would be different it ended up being anything remotely close to what he promised during the campaign.

[jd1138]

I agree that single payer would be better, but this is transitional. Totally getting rid of insurance co's would be even harder to get passed than what has been passed.

And it's not a case of forcing people to buy insurance when they can't afford it. It'd be income based. It would be affordable. And if someone couldn't afford it, they'd have part of all of their premiums subsidized.

We're ALREADY paying for uninsured people. We pay because they don't have access to preventative care and basic meds, so they end up in the hospitals, which is way more pricey than preventative care and meds. The patient who can't afford to pay a $50,000 hospital bill can't pay it, and the hospital writes it off and passes the expense on to you and me.

[phatlip]

I agree that single payer would be better, but this is transitional. Totally getting rid of insurance co's would be even harder to get passed than what has been passed.

And it's not a case of forcing people to buy insurance when they can't afford it. It'd be income based. It would be affordable. And if someone couldn't afford it, they'd have part of all of their premiums subsidized.

We're ALREADY paying for uninsured people. We pay because they don't have access to preventative care and basic meds, so they end up in the hospitals, which is way more pricey than preventative care and meds. The patient who can't afford to pay a $50,000 hospital bill can't pay it, and the hospital writes it off and passes the expense on to you and me.

I'm skeptical, and understandably so I think. The Democrats had a supermajority and were barely able to pass even this. I just don't see this growing into what everyone is hoping it will.

You can't determine whether or not something is affordable by looking strictly at ones income. It doesn't account for things like ones cost of living and other bills that individual has to pay. Something that varies all over the country. Welfare is a good example. People who aren't poor enough to get help, but poor enough that they're hurting- bad. That's the problem when you look at a persons income and determine what is and isn't affordable. It ends up screwing over tons of people over. In this case, FURTHER hurting someone who needs help.

"Sorry Mr. So and so, If you made just $2,000 less a year we could help you. So despite not having money for insurance as it is, we are now going to REQUIRE that you pay for insurance. Skip a meal perhaps? Don't worry though, we can help you with food stam...never mind. You make too much for that too. LULZ"

This is why single payer is the only realistic way of going about this.

No need to make an argument for the need for health reform. I was all for the public option and like the idea of single payer. It's just that this is a really crappy law.

[tokenuser]

Btw - did I mention that I work for health insurance company now? It's interesting sitting on this side of the fence. Unlike the big boys though (BCBS, Kaiser, Aetna), 90% of premiums are paid to service providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc), 7% is operations (buildings, people, me :) ), and 3% is profit. That 3% goes to our (private) shareholders - a medical foundation, that then reinvests in the hospital services.

[zeo]

Pretty much agree with everything phatlip stated, this health care plan was ill conceived from the beginning. But what can we expect from a plan that like our taxes is way more complicated than it needed to be, where even the drafters didn't understand all of it, and no one was allowed to read it properly before they voted on it.

They should keep it simple and make the system more efficient. Figure out ways to get more doctors and make it easier for people to get medical education without being in debt for the rest of their lives.

Right now a lot of doctors have to charge extra to help them pay off the debt they accumulated becoming doctors.

Single payer system is just a tip of the proverbial iceberg of things they need to get right. Before we can really get serious about implementing a universal health care that won't collapse on itself due to inefficiency and out of control costs.

[jd1138]

It's not really valid to turn off healthcare reform because the plan isn't 100% perfect or because it doesn't address every single issue.

Politics is compromise. And laws and reform are incremental sometimes.

We need to train more doctors and nurses, and that is a big part of the problem, but we also need other reforms.

[phatlip]

It's not really valid to turn off healthcare reform because the plan isn't 100% perfect or because it doesn't address every single issue.

Politics is compromise. And laws and reform are incremental sometimes.

We need to train more doctors and nurses, and that is a big part of the problem, but we also need other reforms.

I'm sorry, but this law sucks. It does a really crappy job of addressing the issues in the health care system (if at all).

"But wait Phatlip, if you get sick your health insurance wont drop you!"

That's assuming they refuse to pay the small fee of $100 a day which is likely cheaper than them dropping me because I'm that sick.

This isn't what I voted for, and anyone who voted for Obama and actually paid attention during the campaign should be as angry as I. Yes, there are a few neat things in the law, but they're relatively minor in the grand scheme of the entire point of passing reform. I would have rather they spent their time on fixing the economy and creating jobs than this POS law. I suspect more lives would be saved by them focusing on that than this crappy law. Unless the GOP completely screws up in the primary's, Obama is likely going to be a one term President. Mark my words.

[tokenuser]

You got the President you voted for.

He didn't get the Congress or Senate he needed.
He got a completely partisan (on both sides) team to work with.
Major change needs people on both sides to listen and work together.
That doesnt just mean "We dont like 'x'" ... "OK, we'll remove it. What do you suggest?" ... "We have nothing, we just don't like that."

One side had no backbone. The other no clue.

[phatlip]

You got the President you voted for.

He didn't get the Congress or Senate he needed.
He got a completely partisan (on both sides) team to work with.
Major change needs people on both sides to listen and work together.
That doesnt just mean "We dont like 'x'" ... "OK, we'll remove it. What do you suggest?" ... "We have nothing, we just don't like that."

One side had no backbone. The other no clue.

I just didn't know he was going to be a complete pushover when I voted for him. The man had some good ideas during the campaign, but his inability to be an effective and strong leader is causing them to die. It's a shame.

[jd1138]

I just didn't know he was going to be a complete pushover when I voted for him. The man had some good ideas during the campaign, but his inability to be an effective and strong leader is causing them to die. It's a shame.

But Congress makes the laws, all he can do is hope they pass his agenda. But I guess what you're saying is that he should be more vocal and outspoken and more of a leader, so he could push for better and more changes? Like when JFK gave his speech about going to the moon before the end of the 1960's.

It's too bad that so much energy has to be wasted on trying to force people (like congressman) to do the right thing. Truman said "I sit here all day, everyday, trying to get people to do what they ought to have the sense to do in the first place."

[phatlip]

But Congress makes the laws, all he can do is hope they pass his agenda. But I guess what you're saying is that he should be more vocal and outspoken and more of a leader, so he could push for better and more changes? Like when JFK gave his speech about going to the moon before the end of the 1960's.

It's too bad that so much energy has to be wasted on trying to force people (like congressman) to do the right thing. Truman said "I sit here all day, everyday, trying to get people to do what they ought to have the sense to do in the first place."

You definitely make an excellent point, and it shouldn't be overlooked. But at the end of the day, he IS the president. For better or worse, he's going to be the one held accountable as of the direction the country's going, and whether or not he's successful in achieving what he promised during the campaign. Accountability seems to be something Obama struggles with. Granted, he did inherit a mess and had to deal with a shitty Congress. But he can't place the blame on everyone else as he often does. I truly think a lot of it has to do with leadership and what you said about JFK.

[davisan]

I'm sorry, but this law sucks. It does a really crappy job of addressing the issues in the health care system (if at all).


I would have to agree. The House just did their part to repeal it. It has been proven that the only people who benefit from the law is the spoiled brat insurance companies. What really irks me is or was being possibly imprisoned for not buying health insurance. People need to contact their senators to urge them to also repeal the law.

Since HR Clinton was the starter of all this crap, we intend to boycott anything she is involved in.

[phatlip]

I would have to agree. The House just did their part to repeal it. It has been proven that the only people who benefit from the law is the spoiled brat insurance companies. What really irks me is or was being possibly imprisoned for not buying health insurance. People need to contact their senators to urge them to also repeal the law.

Since HR Clinton was the starter of all this crap, we intend to boycott anything she is involved in.

Well don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of health care reform. I wanted a public option and wouldn't rule out a single payer system either. I just feel that what we ended up getting was a really half assed version of it. That and I think there are a lot of flaws in what we ultimately ended up with. It's just in retrospect, I think a lot of the new law was a waste of time when we got away from the original goal of implementing a public option.

The house attempting to repeal the law was nothing but political show and a waste of time.

[cupajo]

I would have to agree. The House just did their part to repeal it.

That was a gimmick vote. It won't go any further. They basically just wasted time and taxpayer dollars on showboating.

It has been proven that the only people who benefit from the law is the spoiled brat insurance companies.

Where has that been proven exactly? Was this something that Glen Beck diagrammed on his chalkboard?

What really irks me is or was being possibly imprisoned for not buying health insurance.

This is a ridiculous bit of misinformation that you have either bought hook-line-and-sinker or are a willing participant in spreading. There was never any risk of jail-time for not having insurance. There is no language in the bill that says you'll be locked up. If I'm wrong, find it. Prove me wrong.

People need to contact their senators to urge them to also repeal the law.

Yeah, I'm busy. But you go ahead and get right on that. Let me know how it goes for you.

Since HR Clinton was the starter of all this crap, we intend to boycott anything she is involved in.

What are you going to boycott, exactly? Are you not going to buy her Clinton-brand Diplomacy With World Leaders (now with a hint of lime!)?

[phatlip]

This is a ridiculous bit of misinformation that you have either bought hook-line-and-sinker or are a willing participant in spreading. There was never any risk of jail-time for not having insurance. There is no language in the bill that says you'll be locked up. If I'm wrong, find it. Prove me wrong.


The bill is over 1,000 pages long, so asking someone to shift through the entire bill is sort of an empty request. I admit, I'm guilty of using this tactic myself. But MOST people aren't going to go through a 1,000 page bill. You know that and so does he. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly doubt ANYONE here has read the entire bill.

But with that said, it's always been my understanding that there was the possibility of jail time for not purchasing insurance. People who willingly choose to not get insurance will be fined for not doing so. One of the consequences for not paying that fine being jail time. This is something I've read from people in favor of the bill, and coming from a guy who wanted a public option.

Just figured I'd throw that out there in all fairness.

[cupajo]

The bill is over 1,000 pages long, so asking someone to shift through the entire bill is sort of an empty request. I admit, I'm guilty of using this tactic myself. But MOST people aren't going to go through a 1,000 page bill. You know that and so does he. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly doubt ANYONE here has read the entire bill.

If he's unwilling to read it, he shouldn't be making claims about what's in there. The same applies to Sean Hannity.

But with that said, it's always been my understanding that there was the possibility of jail time for not purchasing insurance. People who willingly choose to not get insurance will be fined for not doing so. One of the consequences for not paying that fine being jail time. This is something I've read from people in favor of the bill, and coming from a guy who wanted a public option.

Just figured I'd throw that out there in all fairness.

The fine is levied as a tax. If you don't get insurance, you get taxed. If you don't pay your taxes (in general) you can go to jail.
Not the same as saying someone will be jailed for not having insurance, because you could be jailed for not paying your taxes if there was not a health care reform bill. A minor distinction, but an important one.

[phatlip]

If he's unwilling to read it, he shouldn't be making claims about what's in there. The same applies to Sean Hannity.


How long did it take you to read it?


The fine is levied as a tax. If you don't get insurance, you get taxed. If you don't pay your taxes (in general) you can go to jail.
Not the same as saying someone will be jailed for not having insurance, because you could be jailed for not paying your taxes if there was not a health care reform bill. A minor distinction, but an important one.

Well it is. Because you're ultimately in jail because you didn't get insurance. Now we're playing semantics.

[davisan]

People more learned than I am realise what the Health care bs really is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40642879/ns/politics-more_politics/

[tokenuser]

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges. A number of other lawsuits were dismissed early on, without rulings on the substance of the law.Hmmm.

2 for, 1 against. No surprises, split on political lines.

Until it hits the supreme court, this is about as relevant as the republicans wasting time showboating on the house floor.

[davisan]

You have so little faith.

[kazooga1234]

It seems that America is actually going backwards compaired to other countrys. I mean it just got some sort of universal health care that is trying to be taken away. It might not be the best health care bill that could have passed, however it is better then nothing. Now we are also dealing with this act in America Protect Life Act. I want Dan Brown to talk about the Protect Life Act and hopefully stop it before it's to late. This also effects guys. If a guy rather have their wife or girlfriend have an abortion over the womens death they can't. Instead that decision is left up to the hospitals. America needs to stop going backwards and we have to make it known and stop it. Please vote thumbs up in this link.

http://revision3.com/dan30/task/talk-about-protect-life-act-

[tokenuser]

It seems that America is actually going backwards compaired to other countrys. I mean it just got some sort of universal health care that is trying to be taken away. It might not be the best health care bill that could have passed, however it is better then nothing. Now we are also dealing with this act in America Protect Life Act. I want Dan Brown to talk about the Protect Life Act and hopefully stop it before it's to late. This also effects guys. If a guy rather have their wife or girlfriend have an abortion over the womens death they can't. Instead that decision is left up to the hospitals. America needs to stop going backwards and we have to make it known and stop it. Please vote thumbs up in this link.

http://revision3.com/dan30/task/talk-about-protect-life-act-There is more than a little irony to the fact that those that are pro guns, pro expanded military, and pro death penalty are also the ones that are most vehemently pro life.

[bobv13]

It is not if what is in the bill is good or bad, but it is horrific in what it represents . It says to me that those in Washington can make me do what ever they decide to make me do regardless of any law I have to protect me. This is just another step in the dismantling of the Constitution. The ends do not satisfy the means here.

As a suggestion: whenever I've been faced with what seems to be an impossible task, I have found it helps to break it down in to smaller pieces.

[jd1138]

It is not if what is in the bill is good or bad, but it is horrific in what it represents . It says to me that those in Washington can make me do what ever they decide to make me do regardless of any law I have to protect me. This is just another step in the dismantling of the Constitution. The ends do not satisfy the means here.

As a suggestion: whenever I've been faced with what seems to be an impossible task, I have found it helps to break it down in to smaller pieces.


It's not so much making YOU do what they decide. It's about making the health insurance co's not deny people coverage just because they had cancer in the past or some other pre-existing conditions. Insurance co's only want you on their rolls if you're healthy. If you were unfortunate enough to have been sick, they basically don't give a crap about you and don't want anything to do with you or your future medical bills.

This isn't really a personal freedom issue. Are you really saying you wish to enjoy the freedom of being denied health insurance if you had cancer in the past?

[bobv13]

It's not so much making YOU do what they decide. It's about making the health insurance co's not deny people coverage just because they had cancer in the past or some other pre-existing conditions. Insurance co's only want you on their rolls if you're healthy. If you were unfortunate enough to have been sick, they basically don't give a crap about you and don't want anything to do with you or your future medical bills.

This isn't really a personal freedom issue. Are you really saying you wish to enjoy the freedom of being denied health insurance if you had cancer in the past?

Yes, I know and it takes over 1000 pages of law to do that? The provision you mention is one of the pieces that could have been agreed upon by everyone but it not the issue I'm concerned about. The problem we now have is that a law says You Must Buy something from Joe Blow or Go to Jail.

[hellhound]

this was a huge freebie to the insurance companies. While they now have to take those w/ pre-existing conditions... They can still charge them higher premiums, and have also been raising their premiums every month for everyone... Now the the higher % they are allowed to charge those w/ pre-existing conditions prolly still makes them huge profits above what they were previously making.

And... just because you are "covered" by insurance doesnt meant that all procedures will be covered, or even that those that ARE covered will be covered at a 100% rate. A procedure might only be covered 40% and your copay/deductible is the rest.

Insurance companies are loving this privately, while publicly frowning.

Ok, its a 1st step (some will say).. hopefully further legislation will get the flaws out.. perhaps include a Medicare buy-in or public option.

Funny how when 1st put forth they were saying "It's not a tax".. then when consulting constitutional lawyers who advised that the govt cant mandate purchasing but are allowed taxation.. they changed to "It is a tax".

The argument of "the govt can mandate car insurance" doesnt apply because I can choose to own a car or not... This is a "Because you breathe you must purchase goods/services from a private entity".

I fully expect the "mandate" portion (or perhaps the whole law) to get struck down as unconstitutional.

Shame, cause there are some good Health Insurance reforms in there that prolly shoulda been made incrementally by other regulatory means/methods.

[tokenuser]

this was a huge freebie to the insurance companies. While they now have to take those w/ pre-existing conditions... They can still charge them higher premiums, and have also been raising their premiums every month for everyone... Now the the higher % they are allowed to charge those w/ pre-existing conditions prolly still makes them huge profits above what they were previously making.Do you know that, or do you think that?

Preexisting condition coverage is not mandated until 2014.

Until then, insurance is in place that is managed by health care carrier(s) in each state under contract to the state (similar to medicare/medicaid/VA).

For example - http://www.insurance.illinois.gov/ipxp/

Illinois has a single pre-existing condition insurance provider.

Premium creep is a huge issue. The same people complaining about it are most likely the same people who are proponents of a market driven pricing model and less government regulation (yes, those provisions which would have put limits on increases were yanked from the health care reform act by the Republican side of the house/senate).

[bobv13]

Premium creep is a huge issue. The same people complaining about it are most likely the same people who are proponents of a market driven pricing model and less government regulation (yes, those provisions which would have put limits on increases were yanked from the health care reform act by the Republican side of the house/senate).

I am also under the impression that insurance companies profits have been, will be and are currently highly regulated. In short they can only increase profits by increasing the number of individuals they cover. Hence "Yea! Obama Care" said the insurance industry.

So your calling out of the Republican side of the house/senate should also credit them for recognizing the fact that the industry will need to increase premiums to keep pace with the upcoming costs due to preexisting condition coverage that will be mandated in 2014.

Maybe the short sided progressives would prefer that the insurance industry fail. That way Democrats the could get their Beloved One Provider system.

[tokenuser]

I am also under the impression that insurance companies profits have been, will be and are currently highly regulated. In short they can only increase profits by increasing the number of individuals they cover. Hence "Yea! Obama Care" said the insurance industry.

So your calling out of the Republican side of the house/senate should also credit them for recognizing the fact that the industry will need to increase premiums to keep pace with the upcoming costs due to preexisting condition coverage that will be mandated in 2014.

Maybe the short sided progressives would prefer that the insurance industry fail. That way Democrats the could get their Beloved One Provider system.Little known fact - preexisting coverage is underwritten by the government, but covered by private carriers. There is no additional cost to the insurance industry. Preemptive rate increases (looking at BCBS) are a profiteering money grab by organizations that are supposedly not-for-profit.

Did I mention I work for a health insurance company? Doesnt make me an expert, but it does make me better informed on the issue than most of the population. Fwiw - 90% of our premiums go to paying providers (docs, hospitals, etc), 7% goes to our expenses running the company, and 3% goes to our owners ... who are a hospital/medical foundation and use the profits to keep the medical costs low. Ask BCBS what their breakdown looks like.

[hellhound]

Little known fact - preexisting coverage is underwritten by the government, but covered by private carriers. There is no additional cost to the insurance industry. Preemptive rate increases (looking at BCBS) are a profiteering money grab by organizations that are supposedly not-for-profit.

Did I mention I work for a health insurance company? Doesnt make me an expert, but it does make me better informed on the issue than most of the population. Fwiw - 90% of our premiums go to paying providers (docs, hospitals, etc), 7% goes to our expenses running the company, and 3% goes to our owners ... who are a hospital/medical foundation and use the profits to keep the medical costs low. Ask BCBS what their breakdown looks like.

Perhaps the company you work for is the exception rather than the rule. Also.. the 7% figure you say is for expenses like salaries.. could those be some multi- million $ a year salaries for the big guys?

You asked me previously about my info on it.. only what I get from C-SPAN, Morning Joe and some other political shows like Meet The Pres, Face the Nation etc.
Rep Weiner (D-NY) was furious w/ the bill... and he's a Dem. He wanted a Medicare or single payer buy-in. Reporting how Medicare only has a 4% overhead where "for profit" companies have around 18-20% overhead (big salaries, advertising etc). There was even an ex insurance bigwig that quit his job to write a book and rail against both the flaws in the for-profit system and the Obamacare bill.
I dont know the exact stipulations of the time frames of when different things begin, but the "jist" of what I got... was that the ins. cos will get new bodies at higher rates for afew years before many things kick-in in 2014 or so.
When both Dems and Repubs bitch about something you know its flawed in both directions.
Its too long and convaluted (sp?) of a bill and I hope it gets fixed.

And I wouldnt mind if "for profit" insurance companies went out of business in favor of non-profit ones.