Health-Law Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional

I swear that I was going to pass this one up. I've posted in so many threads about healthcare reform and just gave up because people only want to listen to what they want to hear. With that said, the further I got into this thread and the more misinformed I found some posters to be, I just couldn't pass it up so I decided to respond in chronological order to everyone's post. I really don't mean to be disrespectful in saying that - it's just that the legislation, as written, is extremely confusing and ambiguous (on purpose, of course)

Firstly, I'll let everyone know I was a corporate insurance broker for over 20 years who got out of the field over a year ago when I just couldn't stomach what was going on anymore relative to worker's civil rights, one piece of which was the whole healthcare reform debacle. I participated in several non-partisan think tanks on healthcare reform and when the specifics of the initial law, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was released to the public at 5pm on the Thursday afternoon of 11/182009, I spent the next three days reading, dissecting and trying to interpret each of the 2,074 pages (it was my job). I've read every single page of PPACA and of the amending H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which passed the Senate on March 25, 2010. The combined verbiage of both bills was signed into law on March 30, 2010 and became effective retroactively to March 23, 2010. I hope that this will quantify my qualifications to comment on some of the issues discussed here.

reply to post by majesticgent

Not sure what it really means though? Does this mean that the entire bill is scrapped, or just the Medicare part of the bill? Won't they just redraft it to make it constitutional?

This will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court. There have been several pundits who have predicted that if one piece of the law is declared unconstitutional, the ruling will apply to the full law in its entirety but the reality is that it will be up to the Supreme Court.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

What's next the bill goes back to Congress to be redrafted or something? If it gets ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme court next term?

Again, it depends on the Supreme Court's determination. They could rule against one piece or the entire enchalada. If it's just the individual mandate they deem unconstitutional, chances are that the remainder of the law will stand until it's either repealed or revised by whomever is in control in 2012.

reply to post by marg6043

Yes it was braking news from Washington, the 11th circuit court is the highest under the supreme court this means that now is going directly to the supreme court for debate.

Not exactly correct. The entire country is divided into circuits from 1 through 11, each assigned to different parts of the country but each with equal power and authority for their own jurisdiction. The number 11 just happens to be the last number of the divide and doesn't indicate that it climbed up the ladder from 1 to 11 and then the Supreme Court - it doesn't work that way.

It is unconstitutional, everybody remember when Hilary wanted to push the health care reform back during Clinton years, well the then Republican congress along with many democrats stop her in her tracks because the constitutionality could be challenged in the supreme court.

This was just one of the many reasons why "Hillarygate" failed. The following is from a blog maintained by Alan Katz, one of the most unbiased and experienced minds in the insurance industry (on the consumer advocacy side).

Senator Clinton blames special interests, especially the insurance companies, for defeating the health care reform package she developed for her husband’s administration in 1993-94. There’s some merit to the claim. Tens of millions of dollars went to lobbying, advertising and organizing against the proposal. But while that level of spending would have made passage more difficult, if the plan had been well conceived and well promoted it would not have been enough. With Democrats in the White House and controlling Congress, the right plan, developed and sold in the right way should have been successful. And that was the problem. Under now-Senator Clinton’s leadership, the plan was developed in secrecy and presented to the public and decision makers with unforgivable ineptitude.

Senator Clinton talks a lot about reaching out to all points of view to fashion consensus policies and programs. Now. Then, however, it was her way or the highway. In late-1992 she began assembling a large group of very smart people to develop her health care reform package. They sequestered themselves in Washington and talked among themselves. Occasionally they’d seek input from outsiders. But like Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters, you were either on the bus or off the bus. And if you were off the bus, your opinions didn’t matter.

This created two problems. First, developing policy in an echo chamber rarely works. The results may look good when considered in a vacumn, but when exposed to the real world, one flaw cascades through the interwoven assumptions, reducing the whole to dust. The Clinton health care plan of 1993 and 1994 was beautiful to behold, an exquisite example of theoretical policy. It was also fragile. Because the Clinton administration was unwilling to accept advice or input or, heaven forbid, changes, from the outside, it lacked a foundation to withstand deep scrutiny. Much to the surprise of the Clinton health care working group, their plan was flawed. And those flaws led to the unravelling of the whole. Second, excluding members of Congress from the process was just stupid. By ignoring even Democrats in Congress, there was no one at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who had any stake in the outcome. In fact, it merely engendered hostility. I participated in three Congressional hearings, representing the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU is an association for health insurance agents and other professionals). None of the questioning dived deeply into the Clinton health care plan. There was plenty of questions concerning other reform proposals, but our criticism of the Administration’s plan was pretty well accepted by the Congressional panels.

The lesson is clear: developing health care reform requires an open, inclusive process. Every opinion and perspective needs to be represented.

Link to Blog

Then with Obama was resurrected again and thanks to the Whores in congress selling themselves to private insurance interest they allowed the corrupted insurance to write the mandate.

Not exactly correct - insurance HATED the final legislation which capped their annual premium increases under a provision called Mandatory Loss Ratio or "MLR" (for instance, in NY, $0.80 of every $1 spent in premium has to be used to pay claims or it goes back to the insureds), mandated higher levels of coverage (increased coverage in many areas to provide unlimited benefits on a graded yearly schedule starting in 2010 and ending fully unlimited in 2014, extended immediate coverage for children to age 26 as well as establishing high risk pools to cover previously uninsurable individuals with pre-existing conditions (didn't have any baring on economic status though, just medical status); however, the legislation did NOTHING to curb the tide of escalating medical and pharmaceutical costs so while insurance is being forced to provide MORE coverage and limited in the amount of premiums they can charge (although I'm certainly not losing any sleep over this prospect), neither health care providers nor big pharma had any cost restrictions. The fact that the cheapest individual insurance plan in NY is somewhere around $900 for single HMO coverage doesn't inspire any pity from me for the insurance industry, but the law did nothing to reduce this which is unfair to the consumer. Sure, there would now be millions of new potential insureds, but the level of benefits provided would by far outway other considerations as medical and big pharma expenses continued to rise.

reply to post by caladonea
to original post by majesticgent

From what I understand...the part of this (health-law) that says people either have to have insurance through their employer or buy it personally...(meaning everyone) this part of the law will not pass ...but the rest of the law will....
(supposedly)... anyway..now it goes to the (supreme court) and they will decide the final outcome.

Correct and this is the unknown at this point.

reply to post by Hillbilly123069

Not patient enough to read through to see if someone else posted it.
Obamacare is now before the US Supreme court. Month ago maybe. You might hear a ruling before the end of the year.
Here's the link.

www.globalpost.com...

Yep - the case was filed on 3/23/2010, the date PPACA was enacted. The Supreme Court isn't required to hear every case filed under its auspices, but there's no question that PPACA will be decided by the highrest court in the land.

reply to post by The Old American
tooriginal post by majesticgent

Without the individual mandate Obamacare has no reason for existing. It should just be repealed since it's another useless piece of progressive legislation wasting taxpayer money.

Not true. The individual mandate was one small piece of the legislation and there were some good pieces of the legislation (rating restrictions, full waiver of pre-existing condition limitations by 2014 and immediate waiver for anyone under age 19, coverage for adult children to age 26, non-rescission of coverage, etc).

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

Ha. I'm glad they ruled it unconstitutional because it stunk and didn't achieve what is needed.

Very well said and I couldn't agree more. The legislation needed provisions which curbed the escalating cost of health care and big pharma.

I think in order to push a universal health care system (which this wasn't) it will end up being a constitutional amendment voted on by the people. I think a well thought plan would pass in a landslide. I also don't think a very high % of people who are already covered by such a system would be willing to give it up, thus precedent makes it a no brainer.

Valid points but I'm not exactly sure where would the money for this constitutionally voted amendment would come from. Universal Healthcare would need to restrict costs and profits of all parties involved - insurance, medical, big pharma - while guaranteeing that the insurance premiums for such would be affordable to all. Are the majority of Americans willing to pay more taxes for Universal Healthcare (such as the French with their 40% income tax) - I personally don't think so but I could be wrong.

reply to post by marg6043
to original post by The Old American

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!! remember that Obama wanted an universal health care (health care for all) without intervention from health care mafia, but that was scraped because the private interest lobbying body in the US rules the laws written in congress as their lawyers write the laws so they were able to convince the pay off whores that cater to them into forcing the mandate, so what happen if the insurance mafia doesn't get their mandate? well the health care reform will reverse back to the original bill, health care for all, while eliminating medicare and medicaid.

Yes, Obama did want Universal Healthcare but that was a fantasy and everyone knew it. There were certain valid reasons for the individual mandate but all validity was negated when they failed to revise existing premiums costs. Plus, by failing to include any restrictions on the escalating cost of health care and big pharma, it negated any of these trade offs (and yes, I get that people don't like the thought of insurance being forced on them but I'm just indicating the rationales and not my personal opinion on constitutionality).

See the whole purpose of the health care reform is to give carte Blanche to the insurance to gouge consumers by mandate, that is why Massachusetts is in trouble, because the insurance were never regulated and they are gouging the consumer with out of pocket expenses and deductibles and because is mandate by the state people are slaves to the insurance companies mafia.

Yes and no - as explained above, the insurance cartel would not have Carte Blanche to gouge consumers by federal mandate under Obamacare due to the mandatory coverage provisions and restrictions on Medical Loss Ratios (remember $0.80 of every $1) but yes, the Mass plan is failing because of their lack of coverage regulation (which IS included within the federal reform plan).

reply to post by ChicagOpinion

So, it goes on to "Obama's" Supreme Court? What are the chances this pathetic legislation will finally end?

Completely end, not likely as it would be too costly to roll back the entire thing. If it's "Obama's" Supreme Court, there might be minor conciliatory (meaning worthless) concessions but not much more. Even if Republicans gain the Presidency, senate and congress in 2012, it's highly unlikely the entire law will be repealed but major modifications will probably be made.

reply to post by youdidntseeme to original post by ChicagOpinion

I don't agree with Obama in many things, but people think "thanks to the insurance sponsored tea parties" that Obama is the one that introduced the mandate people needs to understand that Obama bill was Universal health care modeled from UK and Canada, tea parties call it socialism and people bought into it, the mandate was written and pushed by Lobbyist from the health care mafia industry.

Actually, there was never an "Obama" bill because it became clear that Universal Healthcare would never pass - it was always just a fantasy. The first major bill proposed was H.R. 3590 which always included the individual mandate. Again, insurance carriers DID NOT want an individual mandate with automatic guaranteed insurability which prohibits their ability to employ adverse selection (not covering those individuals with pre-existing conditions or high risk factors).

If the mandate becomes unconstitutional is not going to be a health care reform then the universal health care can be put in the table again.

Technically correct but in reality a pipe dream known to Obama since we just don't have the money for this!

reply to post by marg6043
to original post by youdidntseeme

I am in favor of universal healt h care, as I am universal education. The only problem I had in entirety was the mandate portion. I have little argument against the gvt making a service available to me, but govt forcing me t purchase the insurance was where I draw the line.

This was never voluntary Universal Healthcare. We can never afford voluntary universal healthcare!

reply to post by marg6043
to original post by youdidntseeme

I and many members in the ATS followed the health care reform from the beginning to the end, we saw the way that it metamorphosed into a bastard insurance pushed bill and how the right paid propaganda made the Universal version obscene.

There was never a Universal version - it was merely a "vision" known to be unfeasible by all from the very beginning.

we warned many but the Tea parties made a good job at confusing the people

I don't remember the Tea Partiers being a mainstream part of our political system back in early 2010 but perhaps Tea Party and Republican have now become a synonymous term??

some people still think that the healthcare is going to provide with checks in the mail for those that can not afford the mandate, I got a word for them, medicaid that is where those that can not be mandate will fall into.

Agreed but the question is whether or not Medicaid is better or worse than no insurance at all...

The health care reform that we have to be made into law if the supreme court doesn't do anything about it, is the version written and redacted by the Insurance companies themself.

As explained above, this is not the case.

reply to post by Jansy

Obamacare was never really about health care. It was about GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

I disagree. It was a badly executed attempt to balance the inequalities within our health care system. Unfortunately, it did not address the correct considerations.

The US already has programs in place to address the issue of individuals not covered under company healthcare plans or those who "fall through the cracks" of the healthcare system. That was what Medicare and Medicaid were instituted for. If the government will CLEAN THEM UP (i.e., get rid of all the corruption in both programs) and exercise appropriate oversight when administering them...they wouldn't NEED a 2,000 page bill that pretty much covers EVERYTHING a government is NOT entitlted to do under the constitution and burdens generations to come with a crippling debt.

Not necessarily true. Do you know how many Americans can afford to buy health insurance but don't because they're either too ignorant about their exposure to illness or injury or too cheap to spend the money? What do you think happens when these individuals need care? They spend their life savings paying off their "retail" health insurance bills (which continue to go unrestricted) and when that runs out, we - the tax paying public - pay the balance. I have no problem with my taxes going toward the low income and indigent, but I have a huge problem with it going to those who could have afforded it but were too lazy or cheap to buy the damn insurance in the first place. As for our public health plans, I agree that the level of corruption and mismanagement is inconceivable but this was not the reason for the 2,000 page document.

This is what KILLS me about the "Nanny State" government. Things aren't working quite right? Oh...well, we'll just create a NEW program and pour billions (we don't have) into THAT. Don't address the problems we already have that need fixing, just add more to the bureaucratic mess.

In total agreement.

reply to post by michael1983l

Why is it you lot focus so much on the constitution, it was written a long time ago. Would you look at a 60 year old book of how to drive a car... of course you wouldn't because times and practices change. It is time to ditch the constitution and replace it with something that benefits America more.

Because we, as Americans, need to believe that our country was established on a system which tried to be fair and equitable for all. With that said, I agree with you and would ask my fellow Americans "how's that been workin for us?".

I'm not going to comment on any of the Canadian statements shared by our Candian neighbors as I don't know much about how their system works.

reply to post by marg6043
reply to original post by surfin4it

The first proposal by Obama was indeed universal health care, the birth of the Tea parties were the result of the propaganda been paid by special interest to make people think that Obama wanted socialism, then congress been bought and sold to private interest will not have it

Agreed. I personally think that the Tea Partiers had their own agenda as you stated influenced by special interest but I don't know how prevalent they were in the original picture of healthcare reform.

that is why in the beginning Insurance companies were up in arms about the health care reform original bill. Because they were going to lose big time with government intervention.

Disagreed, the insurance companies were in panic over the thought of "Universal Healthcare" which never did (and never can) come to pass.

Been US a corrupt country when it comes to special interest and the whores we call politicians, millions were funneled by lobbyist to repeal the original bill and have insurance companies along with drug companies into the meetings while the bill was redacted.

Agreed about the special interest groups and the whores we call politicans but there WAS NO original bill redacted which included universal health care. The first bill was PPACA and yes, the special interests were included in the discussions to correct the mistakes of Hillarygate but the ONLY victors from the final bill were the private medical providers and big pharma.

In the beginning it was more than one bill and as usual the original was scraped(becaise the socialized health caremongering by the tea parties) and the Republican version that allowed insurance to dictate the outcome of the bill was passed

Yes, it was more than one bill - the first being H.R. 3590 (PPACA) and then the concessioning H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. I don't believe the Tea Partiers had much to do with this unless again, we're assuming that the Tea Partiers and Republican are one and the same.

reply to post by marg6043
reply to original post by snowspirit

That is what is killing the Massachusetts residents right now, the state never really regulated how insurance companies were to charge for out of pocket expenses and deductible, so many people are mandate by force to get insurance but can not afford to use them because the outrageous fees and deductible, the insurance companies are making a killing with the mandate insurance steady income.

Exactly right but the federal healthcare reform does have mandates on what they call "essential health benefits" and are trying to limit the cost of insurance premiums via the Minimum Loss Ratio requirement. They fall short in that they are doing nothing to reduce the current insurance premium costs on which these Minimum Loss Ratio requirements are based.

The mandate was not in the original bill it was added to the final bill when the insurance companies won.

Not true - it was in there from the start.

Well, I'm tired and closing down for the night. If anyone is interested, I have a pretty concise summary of the two bills which summarizes all of the provisions and timelines of healthcare reform. Let me know if you want me to post this summary. I realize that it won't change anyone's mind but it will at least provide you with a good foundation of facts (which you can use to either support or revise your opinions). Nite all!

Timidgal

reply to post by timidgal


Thanks for the brake down on the facts, at the end, this whole unconstitutional issue of the bill is expected to reach the supreme court before the year is over, hopefully they will side with the "interpretation of the constitution" and the bill will die in its tracks.

Have you ever played a game of chess just to discover that your opponent is always three steps ahead of you?

What most of you conservatives are failing to recognize is that we progressives have been waiting for the day that the personal mandate to purchase healthcare insurance through a private "for-profit" insurance provider is struck down. If you remember correctly, us progressives fought for a "single-payer Medicare for all" program, which the republican party objected to, even to the point of not allowing a seat at the negotiating table for "single-payer" and/or "public-option" representatives. So as it turns out, the portion of the bill that appears to be unconstitutional is the very part that republicans insisted upon having in the bill.

Once this personal mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court, we can begin the process of converting the new health care reform act into a "Medicare for all" bill like the one we progressives originally fought for. Once that's done, good luck getting the Supreme Court to rule that Medicare is unconstitutional. You see, Medicare doesn't fall prey to the interstate commerce clause so there will be no basis for a negative ruling from the courts.

If you ask me, I'd say that this scenario is playing out exactly as expected and it now appears that the chess master Obama, has set you up for a resounding "Checkmate." So, when this is all said and done, we'll excuse you while you sit back and scratch your head wondering just how in the hell that Kenyan born, socialist terrorist nazi beat you at your own game. By the way, when it does happen just ignore the outburst of laughter coming from the left, because it's been building up for a long time and we just couldn't help ourselves.

reply to post by Flatfish


that would be assuming of course,

that enough tax money is collected.

especially from unemployed workers !!!!

where's the $$$ gonna come from ?

perhaps from a "progressive" tax rate

all the big corps are doing is moving work off shore to dodge what's thrown at them.

I would say the big companies and banks are the ones with "checkmate" on their minds.

maybe the libs can sell all there assets to help ?

reply to post by Flatfish


I believe that Obama is waiting for that also, like I said I don't like much of what Obama has done after been elected or "lack off" but I was 100% percent for the "original idea"l of the health care reform that he had in mind, that idea was struck down by the public and the Republican congress with the scaremongering of "socialized health care", still people doesn't get it, that is what medicare and medicaid are.

Something that was played good by insurance companies and the Tea parties.

I believe that Obama knows the whole "mandated" part of the bill will be ruled out by the Supreme court.

I also believe that when it comes to forced commerce into the voters and tax payer is up to the individual states to do that by votes, no the federal government.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Flatfish

 

that would be assuming of course,

that enough tax money is collected.

especially from unemployed workers !!

!!

where's the $$$ gonna come from ?

perhaps from a "progressive" tax rate

all the big corps are doing is moving work off shore to dodge what's thrown at them.

I would say the big companies and banks are the ones with "checkmate" on their minds.

maybe the libs can sell all there assets to help ?

In case you hadn't noticed, there are uprisings taking place around the world and this is due to the world's population waking up to the fact that corporations are milking societies around the globe of much needed resources that are vital to their ability to live up to their social obligations. They are waking up to the fact that corporations have no loyalty to any country, their loyalty is pledged to profits and profits alone, regardless of who they hurt in their quest to gain more. The reason that Europe finds itself in the position they're in today is because they foolishly bought into the "lower the corporate tax rate and create jobs" mentality just to find out that they had been duped. When America raises the tax rates on corporations, we won't be alone. People across the globe are waking up.

I'm confident that this awakening will lead to an entirely different set of rules governing corporations worldwide, including a substantial increase in corporate taxes that will apply regardless of where they try to hide their profits. When it does, the advantage of outsourcing jobs will be removed and jobs will return.

Then on the other hand, we could just eat the rich and take their money.

reply to post by Flatfish


Isn't that what Obama had in mind? to tax the higher income earners to pay for the health care reform, but look who is fighting back with teeth and nails in congress, occurs with your variety of high paid corporate lobbyist buying our whores for sell.

I am sorry to say this but if the Democrats are full of whores, so the Republicans have much more.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Flatfish

 

I believe that Obama is waiting for that also, like I said I don't like much of what Obama has done after been elected or "lack off" but I was 100% percent for the "original idea"l of the health care reform that he had in mind, that idea was struck down by the public and the Republican congress with the scaremongering of "socialized health care", still people doesn't get it, that is what medicare and medicaid are.

Something that was played good by insurance companies and the Tea parties.

I believe that Obama knows the whole "mandated" part of the bill will be ruled out by the Supreme court.

I also believe that when it comes to forced commerce into the voters and tax payer is up to the individual states to do that by votes, no the federal government.

edit on 13-8-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Exactly! This is why "Medicare for all" is the only viable answer. The Medicare program and it's supporting taxes are not subject to interstate commerce laws and therefore will not be ruled to be unconstitutional. The GOP should have known where the individual mandate to purchase insurance from private insurers would lead when they insisted on it's insertion into the bill and the fact that they didn't just proves that they lack the ability to be critical thinkers. This is exactly the reason that they are so against collective bargaining with workers, they don't know how to do it. Even the workers have them outsmarted and they know it.

reply to post by majesticgent


this is what happens when people don't vote, listen to the news or read the op pages, put your game controllers down for several hours, pick a news channel, morning, afternoon or evening and its off to school season keep up with the soical issues, its costing us, me, you look at whats going on in the US and UK, gangs, kids with no jobs, parents with less benifits because people DON'T get involved----PEACE

Not sure how anyone on the supreme court would go "Hm. Every American MUST pay for health care, or we tax them....yup. sounds good. *pass*"

I hope the American people are smart enough to know that it's time to kick some ass if this personal mandate is passed.

Cheers.