Do You Approve Of Today's Court Decision To Find The Insurance Mandate Unconstutional

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I vote no.

[mdmc]

1. The bill didn't mandate that people buy medical treatment

It did mandate that people buy for-profit-health-insurance that would be worthless when people needed medical treatment.

[rgbecker]

13. Actually, by the time (2014) it is "required" to buy the insurance,

the policies will be standardized by the federal government to insure payment for the medical treatment required.

The "penalty" for not buying the insurance is simply a tax to help cover the cost of medical care given out for free to the poor and uninsured as it is today across the country. The penalty would not include loss of citizenship, death or incarceration as has been stated several places on DU. Could one be incarcerated for non payment of taxes? It has been known to happen, but is likely only because of fraud rather than simply inability to pay. Usually when the tax is unpaid, garnishment of wages/earnings is the remedy if an agreeable schedule cannot be arranged. Not much different than if you get behind on your credit payments.

[eridani]

25. Will you please cite the requirement that insurance companies are required to pay claims

AFAIK, the medical loss ratio requirement does not guarantee that any particular claim must be paid.

[jobycom]

40. Why wouldn't the contract with the customer require that?

I'm asking, not telling. The business contract a customer signs lays out what the insurance company pays. If they try to violate that, then they are already subject to law. So you must be talking about something else. Could you spell it out more clearly, for us slow or less informed folk?

[eridani]

42. Insuarnce companies deny perfectly legal claims all the time

It doesn't matter if it is illegal--only how much effort people are willing to put into defending themselves. They successfully outwait sick people all the time. You may or may not live in a state with an insurance commissioner who is willing to go to bat for you.

[jobycom]

44. True, but why would adding another law requiring them to pay actually make them pay better?

[eridani]

51. Yes, as a matter of fact, it would. In the Netherlands, France and Japan

--government DICTATES what will be in the general comprehensive package that must be offered to everyone (no age rating or other discrimination), and what it must cost. The private, not for profit insurers are free to offer bells and whistles on top of that for those who want them. Often the government dictates provider compensation as well. That's why one night in a hospital costs $20 in Japan, and why my husband was able to get an emergency root canal in the Netherlands (1996) for $25 American.

[jobycom]

61. Minimum standards would be good, but I feel like we just changed topics.

But I guess I'm still not sure what this issue is about. Someone started off saying that the bill should require insurance companies to pay claims. You're talking about minimum standards that all insurance companies must offer. I can see pros and cons to that, but mostly it sounds good. But that wouldn't make a company pay a claim, it would only make them offer certain types of insurance. The contract would make them pay for the claims. If they refused, the customer would still have to file a legal claim.

Is that the complaint, just that the government doesn't set tougher standards for policies?

And just so you'll know, I'm really asking, I'm not trying to argue through Socratic method or anything. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just trying to understand the issues. I haven't heard the part about requiring them to pay claims before.

[rgbecker]

72. I see it this way.

If the policy is certified by the Federal Government as meeting the requirements of the legislation, the doctor/hospital/care giver will provide the service with the expectation of being reimbursed as is the case with Medicare now. The caregiver will have experience with the coverage, as all the policies will have to meet the same requirements, and they will give the service in full faith that they will be paid as in all the other instances. If they don't get the reimbursement, they have the government to help go after the insurance provider and you will be out of the picture (Hopefully well and still alive.). In the present system, the policies are a miss mash of what ever the insurance companies can pass over the individual state commissioners with a million loopholes based on a range of things like pre existing conditions, employment, expectant compensation. This bill will allow the government to get involved more fully "into 18% of our national economy" (as the republicans will tell you) and you will see a more regulated health insurance industry.

[eridani]

74. "Hopefully well and still alive" is the problem. That's exactly when insurers are going to fuck you

--over, but good. By the time the government sorts it out, you are dead. See the case of Nataline Sarkisian for example.

The regulations in HCR are totally inadequate. Insurance companies are still in the business of killing for profit, and inadequate regulation doesn't change that. The only way private insurance can work is if the government flat out dictates a comprehensive package and what it must cost.

[eridani]

73. You are leaving out the fact that shitty insurance doesn't cover much

If you can't afford to use it, what is in the contract is meaningless.

[mdmc]

63. thanks for the info

[jobycom]

2. You should have an option for "I'd have to read it first."

It could be the type of ruling which shoots down the specific language of the bill while still allowing for the possibility of a rewrite, or it could shoot down the whole concept of mandatory health insurance, or it could allow a modification to take care of specific objections while keeping much of the concept intact.

Without knowing, I'd just be jerking my knee by forming an opinion.

[Cant trust em]

+1

[frazzled]

3. OMG, DU sides with uber-conservative Bush appointed judge

Go figure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. These Results Don't Surprise Me.

.

[mdmc]

6. against mandating that people purchase a worthless product

I know that I am fully insured - yet I struggle to access medical care. How poor people could benefit from for-profit-health-insurance is beyond me..

[Union Scribe]

8. I'd rather side with one Bush appointed judge than a room full of insurance CEOs.

[frazzled]

12. Actually, the only lawsuits that have challenged this are FROM insurance CEOs

The only place where a similar bill exists (though different) is Massachusetts. And the only challenge there has come from insurance CEOs.

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/06/health_insurers_sue_to_raise_rates/

Thank heavens the state of Massachusetts has a strong regulatory scheme in place--similar to the one to be enacted in the new federal law--and a good Democratic governor who enforces it. I guess you don't want that.

[Union Scribe]

14. So by "this" you didn't mean, you know, "this" as in the subject at hand

Thanks for the irrelevent information that supports your position. "Though different." Lol.

[frazzled]

19. this kind of health care law: so its completely relevant

they are similar (as people here have vociferously complained about): both involve mandates for citizens to purchase health insurance, which by law has to offer certain basic provisions; both set up government agencies to regulate insurers prices, etc.

Are they completely coterminous? No, and that is what I meant by "different"

[former9thward]

21. Actually this suit came from a state Attorney General

No CEO filed this suit.

[eridani]

31. No, I don't want that. And only 14% of MA doctors want it

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/october/massachusetts-doctors-snub-state%E2%80%99s-health-reform-as-model-for-country-pick-single-

A plurality of the physician respondents, 34 percent, picked single-payer health reform as their preferred model of reform, followed by 32 percent who favored a private-public insurance mix with a public option buy-in. Seventeen percent voted for the pre-reform status quo, including the permissibility of insurers offering low-premium, high-deductible health plans.

Remarkably, only 14 percent of Massachusetts doctors would recommend their own state’s model as a model for the nation.

[Phx_Dem]

28. Actually, they're on the same side. Along with you. n/t

[usregimechange]

45. +1

[JuniperLea]

17. I feel like your screen name...

I cannot believe the ridiculousness around here.

[slackmaster]

18. I really don't care who agrees with me and who does not

It's not my problem.

[Lasher]

20. OMG, DU is opposed to something Obama campaigned against!

OMG, DU is opposed to a Republican idea that has been around for two decades!

OMG! OMG!

[Supersedeas]

27. short memories

[progressoid]

50. +1

[jobycom]

43. OMG, uber-conservative Bush appointed judge sides with Candidate Obama!

Obama ripped Clinton apart for proposing mandatory coverage. She even argued all the same points he argues now to justify it. Was he lying, or just ignorant, during the campaign, if you don't agree with the judge?

[Lasher]

56. OMG, DU is opposed to a Republican idea that has been around for two decades!

OMG! OMG! We're gonna die!

[progressoid]

52. Actually, quite the opposite.

I'm opposed to supporting this republican bill passed by Democrats and signed by a Democrat.

[northoftheborder]

5. I vote yes because....

The sooner we restructure the health care structures in this country the better. The recently passed law is greatly flawed; does not cover the needs of the country, nor address the costs of health care. The fact that "an insurance reform" bill was passed detracts from the truth of what it fails to accomplish.

[frazzled]

9. The ruling, even if it should hold, doesn't affect any of the rest of the bill

So your hopes for an edenic revolution in American health care will not obtain. All the rest of the bill will remain the same.

However, if it should hold and the means of requiring that everyone be insured is not replaced, it will simply make the existing bill worse. So thanks. People will be worse off for it.

[eridani]

32. But it does affect the only part of the bill that insurance companies were happy about

The regulations, while totally inadequate, are still opposed by insurers.

[T Wolf]

7. By itself, in the absence of a public option or other sensible arrangement, this mandate

does nothing to remedy the dismal system but does mandate increased profits by the insurance parasites.

Anything that takes it down is a good thing. And I speak as someone with an unemployed 24-yr old who has no medical coverage, therefore, no medical care, at the present.

I have not been to a dentist in five years and am way overdue for medical checkups, but choose not to contribute to the corrupt system.

And don't talk about the cataracts that make driving at night an, ... adventure. For me and anyone else on the road.

Unless people are willing to sacrifice for the greater good, the selfishness of individuals will continue to destroy this country.

[harun]

10. Pardon me if I am against the institutionilization of for-profit, murderous Health Insurers.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uzybone]

24. the extreme ends of the spectrum blend into one

[eridani]

46. Of course the 70% of the public that wanted a public option are extremists

If you aren't a corporate whore, you are an extremist by definition.

[Uzybone]

48. the public option is not an extreme position

neither is single payer.

I know the purists want to make them far left positions, but they are not. SP and the PO are center left ideas. Too bad we don't have enough people in Congress that are center left.

I hope we spend our time getting left to center left people elected to Congress. Fuck the extremists.

[eridani]

33. The vast majority of the country saddles up again, you mean n/t

[young but wise]

15. Nope.

[slackmaster]

16. Congress has stretched its power to regulate interstate commerce beyond recognition

How can they justify making it a crime to grow and use privately a plant for which interstate commerce does not even exist?

This abuse of authority must end.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

+1 ... my agreement with the ruling is outside of the realm of healthcare.

it's rooted in the broadbursh misapplication of the oft abused "interstate commerce"

It's bullshit. Cangress does not have the power to tell me I have to buy something.
Not only that... but health insurance is prohibited from being interstate by law!!

How is it even an "interstate" issue, let alone a "commerce" issue, if I decide NOT TO BUY insurance?!?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. +1 ... my agreement with the ruling is outside of the realm of healthcare.

it's rooted in the broadbursh misapplication of the oft abused "interstate commerce"

It's bullshit. Cangress does not have the power to tell me I have to buy something.
Not only that... but health insurance is prohibited from being interstate by law!!

How is it even an "interstate" issue, let alone a "commerce" issue, if I decide NOT TO BUY insurance?!?

[Phx_Dem]

30. When the government (aka taxpayers) get stuck paying people's medical bills

because they refused to carry insurance, I would think that should fall within interstate commerce rules. Medical care for the uninsured has a direct impact on the government's budget, therefore, they shojld be able to address it. Another option would to be allow hospitals to completely refuse treatment to the uninsured, which is inhumane, but why should we have to pay the medical bills of someone who CHOSE not to have insurance.

[slackmaster]

39. What part of the Constitution says that the federal government is obligated to pay anyone's bills?

I don't believe that is necessarily covered by promoting the general welfare.

Another option would to be allow hospitals to completely refuse treatment to the uninsured, which is inhumane...

That's a conundrum, all right. The Hipocratic Oath kind of rules out doctors refusing to treat people under any circumstances.

...but why should we have to pay the medical bills of someone who CHOSE not to have insurance.

Good question. I would also ask why a non-smoker should have to pay the medical bills of someone who got sick because he or she CHOSE to smoke cigarettes?

[Phx_Dem]

41. Where did I say anything about the Constitution?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about paying for Medicare or Medicaid, but we do pay it.

[eridani]

47. The Constitution says that government may levy taxes to promote the general welfare

Insurance companies add no value, and therefore subtract from the general welfare.

[slackmaster]

57. The Constitution is the basis for all federal law

The Constitution doesn't say anything about paying for Medicare or Medicaid, but we do pay it.

That's not the same thing as requiring people to purchase private insurance.

[Caretha]

70. Then answer me this

I bring home 602 dollars every two weeks. I'm 58 years old. The cheapest insurance I can find is $750 per month. What do you suggest I do, since you seem to have the answers to everything?

[eridani]

23. I'm unclear on the legal issue, but politically, this puts single payer back on the table

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0326/p09s01-coop.html

"Are health insurance mandates constitutional? They are certainly unprecedented. The federal government does not ordinarily require Americans to purchase particular goods or services from private parties. The closest we come is when government imposes a condition on the grant of discretionary benefit or permit. For instance, in most states, you must have auto insurance to drive a car, or you are required to install fire sprinklers when building a new house. But in such cases, the "mandate" is discretionary – you don't have to drive a car or build a house. Nor do you have a constitutional right to do so.

But Americans do have a constitutional right to live in the United States. Accordingly, neither federal nor state governments can require you to purchase health insurance as a "condition" for residency. The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between requirements that are flat-out imposed by government and those imposed as a condition for discretionary benefits... "unfunded mandates" are unlike any form of government regulation we've seen.

(snip)

In fact, under the law, there's a big difference between participation in a government health program funded by taxes and privatizing such a program, with individuals forced to purchase private health insurance.

Taxation involves representation, as when Congress appropriates money and controls a government program for the general welfare. This describes Social Security and Medicare. But government cannot simply delegate its taxing powers to private business.

What representation do we have in the insurance firms whose products we would be required to buy, at prices and terms they set? Can we vote out an insurer's board of directors for denying claims or paying its CEO a multimillion-dollar salary? Here, too, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between taxes imposed by government and mandatory fees set by entities with private interests.

A health insurance mandate is essentially a forced contract, in which one party (the insurer) gets to set the terms. You must buy their policies, even if you prefer to self-insure, rely on alternative medicine, or obtain treatment outside the system. In constitutional terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process or a "taking of property."

[GodlessBiker]

26. I used to, but I don't now. You can't have pre-existing conditions without a mandate.

At least not with any hope to keep things financially sound.

Give up pre-existing conditions and I'm happy to give up the mandate.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. No

If this health care law fails, the uninsured will have no options.

[eridani]

35. They have no options now. Unless you consider buying high deductible garbage

--that they can't afford to actually use for health care to be an "option."

[Occam Bandage]

34. Without the mandate, there can be no ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

So no, no I don't.

[sciencewins]

36. Bigger Picture Wise i can see MANY voting YES -- You need a Public Option or this think stinks

Yes it has some good things but without real cost control this is a recipe for a big disaster on both sides of the aisle.
This is not an issue with repub/democrat...people hate to be mandated especially when there is no real control of yearly price rises.
You need better marketing tool like the Public Option to better sell the idea of a mandate..without it this ruling will not be the last.

So i vote YES...i approve of todays decision.

[bemildred]

37. Taxation is the proper way to mandate public expenditures. nt

[rucky]

54. ^^^

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

49. Right. We are all for mandates to pay taxes to fund public goods

We are not for mandates to feed parasites that add no value.

[rucky]

55. You don't see the difference between supporting a public program

and writing a check to Blue Cross? Alrighty then.

[Pirate Smile]

53. Wow. Says a lot about the current state of DU. I think this may be a Ron Paul for Pres website in

2012.

[ShadowLiberal]

58. No, the mandate is the best tool in the bill to control out of control healthcare costs

If we don't bend the cost curve the other way then we're not going to be a super power or a 1st world economy after another decade or two, it's not possible with the current rate of growth for health care costs.

Right now 1/6 of our economy is health care. At the current rate of growth of those costs (4 times the rate of inflation, 10% each year) within a decade or two health care costs will climb to 1/3 of our economy, that's an unsustainable growth, you think our businesses are uncompetitive worldwide now, imagine how it'll be like when they're paying those kinds of prices for employee health care.

Are there better ways we could have, and should have used to control the costs? Absolutely, but we have to realistic and assume it's not going to happen. In order for it to happen the GOP would have to self destruct and democrats would have to grow a spine and be able to manipulate the media narrative the way the GOP and Fox news do it now, and the chances of any of that don't look good for us.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. I am dancing in the street on this!

[Raine]

65. So am I

no way could I ever get behind this give away to insurance and big pharma.

[treestar]

60. No decision until I've looked at the decision itself

I don't trust the media on these things at this point - they never really explain the decisions.

[Caretha]

71. And I thought you were

up to snuff on all that is political and happening in this country Treestar. It seems disingenious to me that you haven't studied this one.

[David Zephyr]

62. Yes. As an American who values my freedom from corporate dictates, absolutely.

At least this will kill this notion once and for all.

[Raine]

64. EXACTLY on point nt

[ipaint]

66. Tax me for universal care- fine!

Force me to buy from a costly, for profit, private middleman, the very entity that drives prices through the roof. No Thanks.


Besides that our conservative government is piss poor at regulating any large business. Our regulatory agencies have been captured and they are basically bribe factories staffed with industry lawyers and lobbyists.

By the time 2014 rolls around 50% of the country will qualify for medicaid anyway. That ought to be a clusterfuck.

Do what every other grown up country with universal care does- neuter the middleman.

[InvisibleTouch]

67. Absolutely. I object to being forced to buy a worthless product. n/t

[Exilednight]

68. It's good to see that at least one person in government could keep one of Obama's HCR campaign .....

promises.

[The Midway Rebel]

69. No.

I know it sucks and I do not like the idea of "Romney-care" but, it is likely the best chance at taming this beast in my lifetime.

[DemocratAholic]

75. that was one aspect of the bill i didn't care for

The insurance mandate was one part of the bill I really didn't like. One of the reasons I preferred Obama over Hillary Clinton was because he said he did not support a mandate, and she said she did. Forcing us to buy health insurance from these private insurance companies was something that I understood to be put there by the conservative Dems/Republicans. It really does strike me as being a huge problem for the government to be enforcing that. What I wanted to happen was for a public option to be made available, that to me seemed a workable solution for ensuring universal health care.

[bigwillq]

76. Yes (nt)