[video=youtube;tDnvmOQDkkw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw[/video] Paul Krugman, our own Albert Speer. _
I really have no idea what they are going to do. I would think the individual mandate and forcinginsurance to cover people regardless of situation would be shut down.
If you are looking from a pure Constitutional viewpoint, the Supreme Court will more than likely invalidate the individual mandate but leave the rest of the law intact.
For pre existing conditions, they already existed for life insurance, long term care insurance, and to a limited degree, health insurance. Expanding that definition is well within the scope of Constitutionality and the commerce clause. Individual mandates expands that definition of the commerce clause and I do not think the individual mandate passes muster.
Sorry, I didn't notice the nuance in the OP at first glance. It was clever though. I need to pay attention better if I am going to comment. My bad.
I have to question the constitutionality of forcing business to sell what the bureaucrats want it to sell.
Definning what to sell is different from forcing to sell. How insurance is defined and to who the beneficiary may be is well within the Constitution.
Insurance is a business, not a government entity. Business usually designs and defines what it wants to sell. Government is trying to control insurance companies to do what bureaucracy want's it to do. Government cannot create insurance itself unless they define it as a tax (social security, medicare) because that has already been determined to be unconstitutional. Since the ACA was devised with input from insurance companies, one can wonder what went on behind closed doors during it's development. In some ways it might be beneficial to insurance companies if it is well regulated since that could insure profit margin since government will also define profit. Profit margins for health insurance is between 3 and 4 percent and government could guarantee a fixed and even higher profit margin. Since covering more things will actually make insurance cost more and one of the reasons health insurance does not cover preexisting conditions because it would price them out of the market. That can be overcome with government guarantees but insurance will just cost more. Since the government wants to force people to buy insurance, the very people they want to force probably can't afford it so it will be subsidized by tax dollars, increasing the yearly deficit. It is now predicted by the CBO to cost the government 2 trillion over ten years and that was with the mandate.
You do not even know that the Constitutional argument is. The only real Constititonal argument is the mandate for health insurance. The rest of it is only tea party hogwash. Government places limitations or minimum/maximum requirements on products such as safety codes or interest rate caps (usury laws). In the 1970's, government created rules that allow for Health Maintenance organizations to be utilized. In the 1990's, it was medical savings acounts, In 2002, it was health savings accounts. If you are saying that government cannot do this, then all other health insurance would not even be sold by insurance companies. How could they when no one would buy such a product given the risk.
These death panels are ever so real for our elderly, and they probably got their inspiration from the other death panels at your neighborhood 'Planned Parenthood' abortion mills. Mind you these death panels along with eugenics and euthanasia are all the brainstorm of your basic liberal mindset.
Medical and health savings accounts are tax breaks, well withing federal government's constitutional rights. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 did not allow HMO's (a variation of health insurance) to exist but rather required businesses with over 25 people to offer them. HMO's turned out not to be profitable so died on the vine. Health insurance is a business that makes a profit based on statistics. The rise in health insurance cost directly reflects the rising cost of health care so it is still a business. Government now wants to basically dictate how a business runs it's business.
I think the mandate is toast, the rest of the law is well within the powers of the government. But that said there are alternatives both in Congress and outside of it to compel compliance and get people to participate. Two I like. One would be a penalty for life on premiums when you do decide to opt in with the employer forced to pay the entire penalty similar to the senior drug plan this could be done administratively outside of Congress under the laws powers to enact measures by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Another I sent to the president and others was this an executive order requiring states that do not mandate coverage to get less favored status in all Federal contracts and funding to include all public and private parties save where obligated by existing contracts say a 15 percent adjustment on final calculations this would leave states free to say no and the president as head of the civilian government can dictate policies of the agencies even to the military. States that do mandate would not have this adjustment. Then its clearly in the laps of the states to opt in or lose their Federal funding in the state to others. No state contracts, no corporate contracts, small business loans, grants, research funding, extra money for schools and such all going elsewhere would do the trick. He will be a last term president he could do this and not risk anything.
You got part of it right. Archer MSA, Medicare MSA;s, and Health Savings account do have tax implications, but before you can obtain such beneifts, you must have a certain type of health plan. Those plans were created by Congress, not business. Congress can set standards for business and interstate commerce. Thus, those standards are within the Constituional authority of Congress. Most of what ACA does is to try to get people covered by some form of insurance. It is a noble goal, but such a plan was never designed to lower costs. Without such a plan, costs have and will continue to go up anyway. Costs go up because we are living longer, we are having more health issues because of obesity, lack of proper exercise and diet, and living in a too stressful environment. We want "Star Trek" cures and will pay almost anyting to get it. We are impatient to find cures for most diseases that have lasted several millenia. And we always want someone else to pay for our health needs and not ourselves. That being said, most of what ACA does is well within Congress authority. Insurance profits have historically remained around 3% to 4% for more than a decade. And those that do not have insurance who need medical help are still subsidized by taxpayers, locally, state, or federal. In addition, most non profit hospitals and a few for profit hospitals will also absord such costs. But one thing is certain, those that seek medical care in the ER and not by primary care doctors raise health care costs more in the long run than if they had some form of insurance.
Health Insurance is not interstate. The problem with the mandate is that it is Congress creating interstate commerce to regulate it. Literally, that is the constitutional question, can Congress create interstate commerce to regulate it.
I agree, although they should throw the whole thing out. It would then be easier for sane people to start adding one change at a time.
No matter what the SC does: Obamacare will be shoved down our throats, the edlerly will suffer the most, the poor will get a free ride and the middle class will be raked over the coals.
Today baby! They could actually decide the case is premature since there is a law that says they cannot repeal a tax law before it comes into effect but the Administration did not argue the mandate as a tax but a penalty so ?????
Next term will also be bid as the Court is going to decide a big case on affirmative action in college admissions, probably will hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, and will likely decide the Constitutionality of an important part of the Voting Rights Act.
