Hey just curious... who WAS the dummy that thought it's constitutional to force people to buy smthg?

[GSLevel9]

It's going to the Supremes and will be found unconstitutional. Don't make me remind you all that Single Payer or Medicare for all wouldn't have gotten stuck in this pile of crap.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-usa-healthcare-idUSTRE77B4J320110812

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

[Tx4obama]

1. There is 'precedent' in U.S. law for a mandate - see link below

See comment #34 on link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=198&mesg_id=3983

[Philippine expat]

60. Big difference

as that mandate is only for part of the population between a certain age
while the mandate in question is for every person from birth to death..

[yardwork]

65. You had to go back to 1792.

[lynne]

67. LOL! 1792! There was a precedent in U.S. Law for slavery and not allowing women to vote -

- then, too. You sure you really want to base your argument on what was a precedent then? Good Grief!!

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. The entire country of Switzerland....

...while it's not necessarily constitutional under our constitution -- after all they're not Americans -- has had a nearly identical system for a while without a descent into tyranny.

Yet. It is inevitable, however -- the broccoli awaits.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. in countries like Switzerland and Holland...

the insurance companies are heavily regulated. Not the case in this country.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. It is not similar at all, becasue there, profit is not allowed on

mandated products, they have strict cost controls and actual, fair subsidies for those who can not afford to pay. It is illegal to profit from those products. The tyranny you speak of is the part where we are robbed and our money give as profit for some executive. They do not do that.
It is funny how that part is left out by so many.

[golfguru]

39. USA is like 100 times bigger than Switzerland

We area diverse country, they are much more homogeneous.
Apples and Oranges.

[Davis_X_Machina]

48. Size alone dictates the potential for lower, not higher rates...

...economy of scale.

[JVS]

55. A country so homogeneous that they have 4 official languages.

[golfguru]

57. When I was in Geneva, everyone spoke English

at the hotel and restaurants. And I could not tell one Swiss from another (ethnically speaking).

[Diclotican]

78. golfguru

golfguru

Switzerland might be smaller than US, but Switzerland is as diverse as US.. They have no fewer than at least 3 official languages French, German and italian, and are religious and political as diverse as any other nation on the face of the earth...

But still they managed to get their population a decent healt care where everyone is covered, from birth to death.. Go figure why US, who is 100 times bigger, and fare more powerfull than Switzerland ever wil be, dosen't managed it..

Diclotican

[doc03]

3. Wasn't that one of the Republican ideas Obama adopted

to appease them? Didn't John McCain back the idea in the campaign?

[Inuca]

4. No, it was actually Hillary's idea

and though never a Hilalry fan, it made sense then and it makes sense now.

[bbgrunt]

6. It was part of Hillary's plan that O firmly opposed during the primary debates.

[Inuca]

7. Correct n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

23. some have forgotten that. nt

[woolldog]

12. Hillary got the idea from republicans.

The mandate was originally a republican idea in the early 90s.

[joshcryer]

34. The mandate idea saves billions.

[Marnie]

59. Since it has not been implemented it saves nothing and

wastes both time and money,and lives.

Universal, or opt in would have been easier to implement and less challangeable.

[joshcryer]

64. No one felt that universal was possible except for the Progressive Caucus.

Thanks to us voting in a rather weak President it never had a chance. Meanwhile we argued against mandates while ignoring that universal health care is a mandate.

[yardwork]

66. There's a difference between the government pooling all our resources

and the government requiring people to buy something from a for-profit industry. Big difference.

[joshcryer]

73. Regardless non-mandate programs are more costly than mandated programs.

edit: look at Chile's social security which is privatized, it was opt in for many years and what happened was a lot of people were suffering, once it became mandated, the system fixed itself.

[yardwork]

88. Of course it is completely untenable to have a for-profit opt-in system.

That doesn't mean that we retain the for-profit system and go all unconstitutional to sustain it. Instead, we swap the expensive mediocre for-profit system we have for one that provides universal healthcare for everybody and is funded by everybody through taxes.

[Enrique]

5. Paul Krugman is one

and Hillary, and Mitt.

Also, judges other than this last one have upheld it.

I think we should face it, it's not a cut-and-dried issue. I agree it will probably go to the Supreme Court, but who knows which way it will go. Maybe since they're all so corporate friendly they will like the idea of forcing people to buy something.

[WonderGrunion]

8. President George Washington

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The second portion of the Militia Act of 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. was passed on May 8, 1792, and signed into law on February 28, 1795. The second portion clarified who the militia consists of and what duties, and penalties were placed upon the militia forces.

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder ; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

[Tx4obama]

9. See comment #1

If you click on the link in comment #1
there are additional links to articles regarding Washington's mandate.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. So this mandate is something like conscription in our early days

a sort of military demand, for the duration of a lifetime, with profits flowing to other private citizens under power of law?

[TheKentuckian]

11. Nothing in there about taking whatever rifle their employer selected.

Hell, they could by a musket or a flintlock.

Individual mandate, individual choice of product sold on the open market.

Also, you only have to buy a gun once rather than every month for life and even still the measure proved temporary and has not been repeated for over two centuries. It was found better to levy tariffs and taxes to allow the government to purchase equipment and provide for the military.

[Moostache]

86. Hmmm....VERY specific about what ARMS citizens were to bear.

I think this has little to no application for health care reform, but in terms of the 2nd Amendment and gun control I have absolutely ZERO problem with everyone keeping a musket and bayonet in their homes...hell I would go so far as to support their right to openly carry their muskets! Its just those damn Uzi sub-machine guns and AR-15 assault rifles and Glock 9mm handguns that seem to be missing from the intent of the founders!

[woolldog]

10. It won't pass constitutional muster.

And I'm not happy with the idea of a mandate anyway so I don't care.

There is no way, NONE, that the supreme court will find the mandate constitutional. The only question is whether they will find it severable from the rest of the bill. That's a complete tossup, imo. I don't care for the way the bill was a product of backroom deals with big pharma and the Obama administration. I don't care for the way Obama squashed the public option.

[Tx4obama]

13. It WILL pass constitutional muster.

See comments #8 and #9.

[woolldog]

16. I've read your comments.

Well have to agree to disagree. The circuit courts are split. So it's not a slam dunk either way.

[killbotfactory]

14. If a public option could have gotten through congress, losing the mandate wouldn't be a big deal

IMO. Anything that makes insurance cheap enough to purchase and use would make the "freeloaders" largely irrelevant.

But since that was impossible, much less single payer or medicare for all, a mandate is one of the only ways to drive down costs of insurance for everyone else. It's a roundabout way to get people to accept that healthcare isn't an optional expense. Everyone relies on it sooner or later, and instead of it being funded by taxes that we wouldn't have a choice in paying, it's funded by requiring us to go through private insurance companies. Companies that should be heavily regulated to prevent abuse of their position. Regulations which will all but disappear if republicans regain control of the government.

[DrToast]

17. The public option doesn't replace a mandate

A public option wouldn't work without an individual mandate.

[killbotfactory]

19. It would give the poor a place to go for health insurance.

Most people want health insurance and would be willing to pay for it if there was an affordable option. IMO A solid public option would make insurance companies lower premiums to compete for business and draw more people into funding our healthcare system, which would make the need for a mandate less critical.

[DrToast]

20. It wouldn't be affordable if people could go in and out at will

Nobody would buy into the public option unless they needed it.

And if only sick people are buying it, it wouldn't be affordable.

[killbotfactory]

21. No one would buy it if they don't mind the hassle of dodging medical bills, i guess.

Or those willing to go to the emergency room under assumed names whenever they have a medical issue.

Maybe my experience is unique, but years of having no health insurance caused a large amount of stress in my life. An affordable option for health insurance would have been greatly appreciated.

[joshcryer]

40. Only way to make it affordable is 1) make it public and 2) mandate it.

Hillary got a lot of shit for the "mandate" (and DU was shockingly "moderate" on that issue), but Krugman backed it and a whole bunch of economists realized just how powerful it was to reduce costs.

[bornskeptic]

32. Poor people would pay exactly the same amount for the public option as for private insurance.

For anyone with an income below 400% of the poverty level the cost of insurance with 70% actuarial value, about the same as Medicare, will be a fixed percentage of income, with a premium subsidy covering the remainder of the premium. Thus a single person with an income of $20,000 would pay about $85 per month, whether the insurance was private or public.

[joshcryer]

38. Private insurance has investors to look out for.

A publuc insurer does not, and can grow at and with inflation as opposed to investor portfolios.

[bornskeptic]

47. That's not the point.

The personal cost of the policies is determined by law, not economics. Though the total price of the policies may differ, the net cost to the low-income person buying the policy is the same. The amount of the subsidy is calculated to bring his or her out of pocket cost to a set percentage of income.

[joshcryer]

37. Agreed, HCR doesn't have a solid public option.

But over time states should adopt their own public options and start pooling them together. If we don't get the public option forced through federally before that happens anyhow.

[joshcryer]

36. Correct, for the same reasons Single Payer wouldn't work if everyone didn't pay.

[joshcryer]

35. There is a public option option, it's state-level. Slower to adopt, but inevitable.

[ProSense]

15. Why the 11th Circuit’s Opinion Self-Destructs

Why the 11th Circuit’s Opinion Self-Destructs

Like a tragic literary figure, the 11th Circuit’s opinion declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional is doomed to failure by its own internal contradictions. What follows is a series of quotes directly from the opinion, paired to show how desperately the majority twisted logic in order to find its path to a unsupportable conclusion:

<...>

The Necessary and Proper Clauses

[DrToast]

18. Who thought it was constitutional? Pretty much everyone until Obama wanted to do it.

[former9thward]

24. Pretty much no one thought the federal government could mandate

buying products from a private third party. And no, car insurance is not applicable because those are state laws. State constitutions do not have same limitations as the federal constitution.

[DrToast]

25. Oh really...

Why did Wyden-Bennet have Republican and Democratic sponsors? Why did the Republican health care plan alternative to Bill Clinton's plan have an individual mandate? Why did Hillary Clinton's health care plan that she was running on in 2008 have an individual mandate?

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Why do polilticians promote things? Contributions.

When running, Obama said trying to fix our health care problems by mandating the purchase of insurance was like trying to solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. He strongly derided the mandate, in every possible way, medium and style.
Why? Contributions.

[Mimosa]

74. ^ I remember that. ^

I remember candidate Obama talking about single payer, too.

[former9thward]

30. You may wish to cite Republicans as great Constitutional authorities. I don't.

If mandates for private third party purchases were constitutional then why hasn't it been done before? Why didn't they do with food, housing,and other things which affect our basic economy? Why in 2009 did it all of the sudden become constitutional?

[joshcryer]

42. Which is precisely why HCR has a state option public option.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. World opinion is that to mandate purchase of for profit products

is criminal. It is illegal in all of our peer democracies which use a mandate to purchase health insurance. There is strict regulation and no profit allowed.

[golfguru]

44. you nailed it.....what we have is mandated profits for insurance companies

[boppers]

31. So I don't have to buy a military, or a pension plan?

Interesting.

[stevenleser]

61. Exactly. We are all forced to buy tons of things all the time.

The Federal government buys a ton of things in our name all the time. Some of those things I do not want to buy.

[boppers]

62. I can see a viable argument in "buying from the government" vs. "buying private".

I am more than willing to "buy into" medicare for all.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Single Payer and Medicare for all have no chance in hell of getting through Congress.

Even this legislation barely squeaked by.

[golfguru]

43. and mandates have no chance to get by SCOTUS n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

49. DU takea a bold stand for the pre 2009 status quo!

[golfguru]

41. I agree...single payer far superior to mandates n/t

[joshcryer]

46. Single payer requires a mandate, it's just a mandate for a single public pool of payers.

As opposed to dozens upon dozens of pools of payers all whom are beholden to investor portfolios. However, the state option public option (that is, states can create their own public pools) should be pushed hard, if you want to keep costs down.

Otherwise mandates are absolutely necessary, both in single payer, and a public option approach, otherwise people will game the system.

[Davis_X_Machina]

50. Under medicare for all there is no mandate....

...because you don't have to pay your taxes...

Hey, wait a minute.

[golfguru]

56. You overlooked the huge difference between single payer & Obamacare

Under single payer all the for profit health insurer's are out.
No profits going out to private corporations. All that money saved
is available for actual health care. Under Obamacare, there are zero
restrictions on how much profit the private corporations can make.
They have simply hiked their premiums to cover expenses for policies
they can not cancel.

[joshcryer]

63. "Obamacare" as you laughably call it has a *state option public option*.

There is a mechanism to crush the for-profit insurers, and it's remarkable he got it in there. It delays the overall adoption of public health care, but it'd happen eventually. Meanwhile it's imperative that we go and make sure we elect a Congress that can improve this and make it a federal requirement.

[golfguru]

69. Have you paid attention to recent profits of private insurers?

They are doing very well indeed. All those campaign contributions
to politicians have paid off.

[joshcryer]

72. The people will only put up with it for so long.

It's only a matter of time. Obamacare will eventually kill private medical insurance.

[golfguru]

77. after "so long" I won't be able to use public option

I will be long dead by then. I want single payer NOW!

[Davis_X_Machina]

81. I will contribute the maximum $2500 to your House or Senate campaign.

Go for it.

[golfguru]

90. Just contribute the $2500

never mind the senate or house!!

[Tx4obama]

45. Answer to your question is: President George Washington. See comment #1. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

51. Agreed

Single Payer would have avoided this entire mess. Golden chance lost for the next decade it appears.

[Honeycombe8]

52. Some govt makes me buy car insurance and homeowner's ins. Who was the dummy who

thought THAT was constitutional?

[JVS]

54. That's a really tired and lame comparison and after 3 years of this discussion you should know that.

[Mimosa]

75. NO government 'makes you buy homeowner's insurance'

Lenders require a mortgagee to buy homeowners insurance. If your house is paid for you can make the dumb choice to 'go naked'. Meaning not purchasing homeowner's insurance.

[Philippine expat]

87. Its the state that requires auto insurance

that would be Constitutional under the 10th Amendment
No govt makes you buy homeowners insurance, thats your mortgage company and is part of the contract you signed, after its paid off
no insurance required

[and-justice-for-all]

53. I see nothing wrong with it....

but it should be established that those below a certain income level, be able to sign up for Medicare or even if one who has an income and does not like the private insurance offered, they should be able to sign up for Medicare as well. I would also say that those signing up for Medicare, and have a quality income, will have 2 to 4% Medicare deduction from their paychecks. Such an arrangement will in fact force private HCPs to compete.

Lets not be naive, there is all kinds of laws that state that you have to this or that.

[Marnie]

58. Obama like things that are complex and convoluted

It makes him feel smart. But he keeps getting tripped up and face planted by his own contortionous.

Maybe he should just try leading instead of gamesmanship.
And not stabbing his own party in the back would help.

[Arkana]

68. Single Payer/Medicare for all never would have made it out of Congress

even if Obama had screamed himself hoarse on the stump advocating for it.

What else you got?

[harun]

70. Well it hasn't been decided by the Supremes yet but I felt it was unconstitutional.

[frazzled]

71. Every mainstream economist, especially Paul Krugman

Sorry, Libertarian deadbeats: you're probably going to have to buy insurance.

[Mimosa]

76. What if a person doesn't have money? n/t

[ipaint]

79. Tens of millions of people in this lousy economy will be rolled

onto medicaid, a program that will be cut repeatedly at the altar of austerity, in preparation for the massive influx of the poor and newly impoverished.

A complete clusterfuck.

Older people will be charged multiples of the regular rate...who can afford that and then pay for the actual healthcare.

The system will eventually collapse with or without mandates.

Insurance companies are facing a massive reduction of paying customers as the baby boomers go onto medicare. The mandate saves them from that awful fate. We, especially those of us on the low end of the economic ladder, will continue to suffer and die unable to afford private for profit ins. and our portion of the cost to access health care.

Ass backwards and guaranteed to fail.

[frazzled]

80. If you have no or little money ...

Then you will get free Medicaid (if you are 133% over the poverty level) or a substantial government subsidy to purchase it.

[ipaint]

82. Substantial government subsidies for poor people, lol... not going to happen.

I often wonder what planet some people live on.

The middle class doesn't blink an eye when the poor are offered up as sacrifices to the austerity gods. This government hasn't substantially funded anything for the poor in decades.

Some poor will get a 3rd world "care" from a broken medicaid system overwhelmed by the increased need and decreases federal and state funds. And as always the comfy middle class will arrogantly pat themselves on the back for providing us at the bottom with free healthcare.

Good luck to those slightly above the 133% level. They get to work to pay for their portion of private for profit ins. but will never be able to afford access to care without losing what little they own now and in the future trying to pay their portion of the hospital and doctor bills on the shitty 60/40 ins. plans they are financially forced to choose.

It's pathetic. Should be criminal.

[frazzled]

83. It did happen

It's in the law. Maybe inform yourself by reading it. It kicks in in 2014--unless the Supreme Court or Republicans in Congress are able to destroy it.

[ipaint]

85. The law doesn't matter. State and federal cuts will kill the "law".

"Three years before Medicaid is due to cover millions of uninsured Americans, state funding cuts may be undermining how much care the government-run health insurance program for the poor will offer new enrollees.

Two dozen states across the country plan to slash at least $4.7 billion from their Medicaid plans following four straight years of budget shortfalls, according to data provided separately by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the consumer advocacy group Families USA.

The cuts would include reductions of up to 15 percent in reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other care providers, higher co-pays for beneficiaries, including children, and the loss of optional benefits such as preventive care and dental and vision services.

Several states hope to restrict eligibility under enhanced Medicaid plans that offer services beyond the basic mandate.

Arizona is leading that charge. It suspended new enrollments for adults without children as part of a $500 million savings package. The freeze bars access for the next three years to an estimated 100,000 people.

As Congress seeks new ways to cut the U.S. deficit ahead of a November deadline, further cuts to the $427 billion Medicaid program also are more likely at the federal level."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/us-usa-health-medicaid-idUSTRE77A5DB20110811

One hand giveth (for propaganda purposes) and the other grabs it away.

Everytime.

You should stop telling already suffering people they are going to get free healthcare, it's incredibly cruel and untrue.

[Mimosa]

89. That's where my partner and I are.

I had to drop my high deductible ($10K ann, no RX, BC/BS ) health insurance. I was paying 30% of everything, no Rx coverage, and couldn't afford the high premiums. My health costs alone including premiums was about $14K a year.

In European countries and canada I understand sate run insurance usually runs about $8K a person.

[karynnj]

84. true - single payer, which medicare for all is, wouldn't have this problem - because it would not

have passed. Sanders said there were no more than 10 votes for Single payer.