E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams joins Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro to discuss the anticipated time frame for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding health care reform.
Transcribed by NBC's Jordan Fraiser.
TRANSCRIPT:
DOMENICO MONTANARO: Alright Mark, well we have another question from DaNoid, another loyal commenter and he says -- I don't know what my blog handle would be anyway, but a, -- "What is the anticipated timeframe for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding health care reform and what can either side do to accelerate or delay a review by the Supremes?"
MARK MURRAY: Wow, that's a great question, and in fact for more information on that we're going to go to our justice correspondent Pete Williams who knows everything that you need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court, Pete take it away.
NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE WILLIAMS: Well, first we don't know whether the Supreme Court will take up the health care case, though it seems very likely it will. If it does, it probably would not be aruged until late February, because the court's oral argument calendar is pretty much filled up until then. Now, in a complicated case like this, the court's decision would probably come at the very end of the term, that would be the last week of June. So far, none of the parties in these health care cases have asked the court to put this on a fast track - not the Obama Administration, not the states or business groups who are challenging the law. So we'll assume it would happen on the kind of schedule that I just mentioned. Now I suppose we have to consider the possibility that the Supreme Court might actually take this case and then decide that it's too soon to get to the crux of the matter -- whether it's unconstituional to require virtually all Americans to buy health insurance. Some lower courts have said any such challenge would have to wait until that provision actually kicks in, in 2014. But the Justice Department and the opponents of the law will urge the court not to put that off and decide the big question and those procedural issues all at once.
DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well thanks Pete, we really appreciate that. You know, Mark, I mean it really is an important distinction, the fact that we have a lot of time to until this election, health care has been a real, you know, big issue and the administration had a decision to make on whether or not they would do this now, wait until next year. Supreme Court takes it up-- what do you think winds up happening here?
MARK MURRAY: You know Domenico, I actually think this is a savvy move by the Justice Department and the Obama Administration, so even if they end up losing this fight, so say the Supreme Court in a 5-to-4 decision, the Robert's Court knocks down, … they hold the hearings this term but then they have their decision some June of 2012. Well the Robert's Court knocks it down, well then there's a decision really to fire up the Democratic base. We've already seen after the Citizens United decision, the Democrats don't like this Robert's Court and so the Obama Administration could actually kind of turn this into getting their folks fired up. On the flipside, if somehow the Obama people end up winning this, then that's actually a shot in their arm. So in a way, you could actually look at it, it's win-win. Now of course, it would be a huge blow to President Obama's historical legacy, for this to go down, but at least short-term politics this could be a win-win situation.
DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well it could be, but the other part of this though, you know, I know there was one election law blog post which made this point that Obama could run against the Robert's Court again, but does that appeal to independents or moderates to say, you know, look at the Supreme Court, this was a wrong decision, it made a bad--you know, I think there might be a lot of people who would look at it as whining, and they would think you know, yes it would fire up the base, it might help with that, but there's going to be some damage control that the administration would need to do if they are to lose this. But if they were to win a couple of months before, Obama could say, well let's not even talk about this anymore guys, it's settled law.
MARK MURRAY: Right. Well look it's going to be a great story on top of everything. It's going to be a story we're going to be following, it's certainly one Pete's going to be following too.
Leave a Comment:
let the discussions begin, sure wish obama would hve followed rahm emmanuals advice on healthcare legislation.
Obama made a really big mistake by ignoring the congressional minority leadership until 2010 as well.
A potus needs to listen to his advisors, not ignore them. I guess we all now know that bing a potus can't be done with on the job training. He had campaigning down, but little else.
Anyone see those photos of Michelle sporting the hat and glasses at Target?
That was hilarious! She's keeping it real with the common folk.
I wonder how much her little trip to Target cost the tax payers in added security? I mean... all those secret service people had to get new 'street' cloths so that they didn't draw any attention, right? And for what? a bag of dog food?
Sounds like more than one person in the White House needs to start acting like they belong there.
(show me the clown nose fisty!)
SickOfTheBickering
Its time to grow up and stop picking fights with other people. Also, keep your comments relevant to the article. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
SickOfTheBickering
Anyone see those photos of Michelle sporting the hat and glasses at Target?
That was hilarious! She's keeping it real with the common folk.
I wonder how much her little trip to Target cost the tax payers in added security? I mean... all those secret service people had to get new 'street' cloths so that they didn't draw any attention, right? And for what? a bag of dog food?
Sounds like more than one person in the White House needs to start acting like they belong there.
(show me the clown nose fisty!)
That's because they belong there. They were elected; Sicko.
Your picture
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/3295727824_e754112fce.jpg
Yo! P.T. Smith...
Who made you the comment police?
The fact that you don't make this comment to the countless others here that post any/everything that pops into their empty heads tells me all I need to know about you!
(show me the clown nose fisty!)
SickOfTheBickering
Sicko,
Your negligence and ignorance is astounding. If you use your dollars, you can do it too just like anyone else!!!
http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/atx-09-21-11-09-26-michelle-obama-dazzles-wearing-diamond-bangles-by-h-towns-katie-decker-23/
Here are the pictures you that will enlighten you upon seeing cry baby...
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/1743e8dd912eba15f90e6a7067004803.jpg" target="_blank">http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1Vka2PRFFW0VwFzhoLHinQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00NzQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/1743e8dd912eba15f90e6a7067004803.jpg
http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/4458527284_21d7409410_b.jpg?w=419&h=279
Bev,
That was awesome! But I like this one better... maybe you remember it?
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/04/Obama%20Joker%20poster.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding your other links... one flat out did not work (html error) and the other two were nasty pics of Michelle's flabby arms and poochy tummy. Thanks a lot! bleh!
In the next election Obama will have had 4 years experience at being the president, and he has been a much more effective CIC than Bush or Cheney (not sure which one of those guys actually called the shots) your inexperienced argument gets weaker every day, and he will be the experienced candidate in the next election so I am happy that you continue to argue for electing the candidate with the most experience.
The debate that needs to be had about healthcare is when the U.S. is going to abandon a for profit healthcare industry that is corrupt, monopolized and not very effective. Look real healthcare reform was left on the cutting room floor in Congress, the bastards sold us out to the insurance lobbyists plain and simple, Obama should have vetoed it and demanded what he always claimed he wanted, but he didn't. Instead the American people got saddled with the "great insurance subsidization act", nothing more than a federal mandate to buy insurance from a bunch of crooks at what ever price they deem appropriate. Until we adopt a single payer "universal healthcare" plan where everyone is covered and everyone pays we are doomed to every increasing costs with fewer and fewer people who can obtain medical care, and nothing can change that.
Forrest. And we, the populace, paid a price for that on the job training in all areas of government except on campaigning. Right now, any current republican candidate could match obamas skill set in at least one area. Any of them would also surpass the skill sets obama had prior to the nov 2008 elections (except in campaigning). BTW - how is that hope and change thing working?
OMG - obama must go!
"So far, none of the parties in these health care cases have asked the court to put this on a fast track."
That comment stood out to me, because I remember reading this:
"Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is asking the Supreme Court to immediately review his state's challenge to the health reform law instead of waiting for a ruling from an appellate court."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48778.html
It seems to me that the ruling would have to wait until 2014, when the mandate goes in to effect.
I'll bet the SCOTUS punts this waaayyyy down the road.
Thanks for the transcription, whoever thought of that should be allowed always get head of the thread privileges.
w bush, your kidding right? We have a ton of problems with the delivery of health care and its costs, but we have the best medical care system in the world and our pharmaceutical industry is the envy of the world? Our medical schools and doctors are the best and brightest. Why because of the profit motive. Its not corrupt or monopolized except in states that dont allow competition for insurance. That said we do have problems and going to universal health care may or may not be the issue but nationalizing the industry would just bring us down to the lowest common denominator.
Don't be silly unless your are an incumbent being re-elected, every president that was ever elected, has been trained on the job. No body was president before they were the president, except an incumbent. It really is a silly argument for you to make because it renders every republican candidate as inexperienced, in need of on the job training, and therefore not worthy of your vote. However in the case of 2012 since we have an incumbent running I will take your advice and not be foolish enough to elect a candidate with no presidential experience.
Not true, Kirk.
Nationalizing the industry will make help 'the commons', and relegate the 'profit motive' to the status of lowest common denominator.
Judged strictly by life expectancy, we're pretty middling, Kirk -- #36 by UN Member status, #50 according to the CIA list. Above us are France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Italy, Israel, Cuba, and most of the socialized medicine countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Even Chile ranks higher in life expectancy than we do.
I suspect this is no accident. Seriously, Kirk.
Kirk you said :
I take it you put the question mark there on purpose. One thing I will say on that statement or question you posed.....We, Americans, pay for all other Countries lower priced meds when they come from American Pharma. Remember that.
SOTB- everybody likes a little ass, nobody likes a smart-ass.
Agree?
dob... Agreed...
But better a smart-ass than a dumb-ass I always say! ;-)
Anna Molly, I never said we didnt have issues with health care and Anna Molly you do know why thats the case right? Because our population is not homogenized and because of our obese lifestyles, we are not at the top of life span charts. There are definitely top notch doctors and hospitals around the world but none at the top like ours come guys quit fighting me on this because I am not arguing with you on whether we have problems. But lets have an honest discussion of what it means to take the profit motive out of health care. Dont carry it all, its true that we subsidize the rest of the worlds low cost meds. But the solution isnt to eliminate all profit motive from the pharma industry. Same thing with doctors, do you really think we would continue to get the best and brightest to go to med schools if they were not going to be able to make top notch salaries? Does anyone on this blog go to mexico to have heart surgery?
I dont think our health care system is middle of the road Anna Molly or at number 36 in the world nor do I suspect you do either. I was hoping to have a discussion on the health care issue without politicizing it too much as I already said I am not against the individual mandate and I respect Obama for tackling a very tough issue. Instead of attacking me on this and I am open to listening to your views, I am just asking for an explanation of how elimination of the profit motive works and what it means and when I ask back I want to make sure we have addressed the unintended consequences of this profit motive elimination. I just dont think that addresses the issues of how its delivered today and the cost of it.
So, the health and life expectancy of minorities don't count?
And obese people deserve to die?
Revealing, anyway.
I'm sure Chris Christie would agree.
[...our pharmaceutical industry is the envy of the world...]
No, big pharma sucks. Over the last 20 years or so they have become profit-driven. And Americans are needlessly dying because of it. Big pharma is beholden to nobody but their shareholders.
The big focus is on treating symptoms instead of curing the ailment. Their answer to all the criticism? Too much regulation. I call BULL@!$%#!
Anna Molly--Come on now is that what I said? Neither of those points has anything to do with the quality of our health care providers--it has more to do with access. Have I not said now for 10th time and why are you trying to trap me on this, that I agree we have health care delivery and expense issues that need to be addressed. The Cleveland Clinic, Sloan, Mayo etc are at the top of the world in terms of health care and that was my point. Revealing about what me? Thats offensive and I dont deserve it. I cant even believe we are discussing the quality of care in the US as if its really the 36th best medical system in the world. If that were true, we would be spending all our dollars headed to the first 35 to get medical care. The question I had for you and the others which I noticed nobody wants to address is that do you really think you can eliminate profit from the entire industry and keep our current quality? Instead lets go make up some BS and attack Kirk because we tend to not like his posting on here.
Mickey, I dont even know what you mean by your rant. Why shouldnt they become profit driven, if they developed Lipitor and it cost them a billion dollars to develop? What they should give it away? Why would anyone develop Lipitor in the first place? Do you think that we should just develop drugs based on charitable grants or from government taxpayer grants? Do you think maybe some of the top minds in the world work at these companies with the hope that they will make a decent dollar if they develop a new drug, how many of these minds do you think are going to work for pharma if they are going to $35,000 dollar a year researchers? Now I agree that because the US system insurance system is different we are subsidizing the rest of the world which needs to be addressed and I agree that maybe we should allow government and not for profit researchers to keep some of the money they make from patents so we dont lose them to the pharma industry but without the profit motive, I dont see US companies being as good. Name me one drug developed by China, Russia, South America, Africa or how many are developed in Canada and England those bastions of socialized medicine? Come on guys share?
We have the finest in the world? Don't bet the farm! Maybe if you are uberwealthy and can afford whatever you want or are or have been a member of Congress! Check out The Commonwealth Fund website--we have an infant mortality rate worse than many Third World countries! We have worse health outcomes for our citizens than all the other industrialized nations! We have a lot of technology and high priced designer drugs, but that does NOT translate into better outcomes--just costs more. We certainly have the most costly healthcare system in the world. We need to remove the profits and go to a one-payer system. That would greatly reduce the costs. Medicare is quite efficient and has a low overhead, unlike private insurance companies. Think we don't have "death panels" now...we do...they are called "insurance companies".
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
There are some things that should be privatized and some things that should be subsidized and some things that are clearly the role of government. And a lot of it comes down to national security, whether ensuring ability to feed the population, to have a healthy population, to have an educated population, to have resources protected for the population, infrastructure for the population, services to protect the population...
You know, all the things the tax payers pay for, otherwise known as the social contract. And all the things businesses depend on to be profitable, and yet conservatives think a zero corporate tax rate is the answer. Amazing.
True Patriot--conservatives think the corporate rate should be low so they can compete better with foreign companies selling competitive products here and around the world to create job growth--you know that demand you keep mentioning. Second, corporate tax rates are just taxes on you True patriot so I dont get why you like them so much. They are taxes on the buyers of the products or the owners of the companies because if they cant pass the tax on in the cost of the product it just reduces the companies value. Who owns companies, individuals you small business owners? union pension plans? college endowments? 401(k) plans so all the retirees?
The healthcare law is flawed because the numbers in were flawed.
President Obama has repeatedly said, 'those unable to pay will be exempt'.
47% of Americans are now receiving food stamp assistance, they can't even afford part or all of their food, and will be eligible to pay zero dollars. Thousands more are losing their homes each month. Over a thousand waivers have been issued. Thousands of businesses who have insurance now have dropped or will drop their insurance and will elect to pay the fine, much cheaper than the insurance. Meanwhile cost of care has increased 25% more than anticipated.
Who's left to pick up the costs? A much smaller group than predicted.
Mercifully the Supreme Court can nip this fiasco in the bud.
scott -- 47 million are on food stamps, not 47%. This is due to the recession and so many people unemployed.
The exemption or waivers in the Affordable Health Care Act means there isn't really an unreasonable mandate, right? Even if the SCOTUS finds the mandate to be unconstitutional, that is only one part of the Affordable Health Care Act, which still represents savings in the budget. The reason the GOP/TP never put forward their own health care proposal is because they couldn't find a better alternative.
The Do Nothing Teapublicans--Lord knows we need to nip that fiasco in the bud.
every other day we are finding problems with this obamacare ,big bucks problems.the demes dont care they think we will stay the best healthcare providers when they cut specialist higher pay,get real who is going to go to go to colledge for extra years if your not going to make more money,the major problem is the dems just had to pass this montrosity without following obumas promise to let america haveing time to read and understand everything,hell the gov. still dont know everything in it and we are finding out it will be way more expensive than they promised,but just like all his promises tuned out to be lies lies lies,and thi jobs bill he keeps drying to pass and blameing the house repulicans of stopping it,well mr. pres your democratic senate has a lot of people not for it .Probably because they are getting use to your ideals being failures and more expensive than you predict.how dare you say that solindra was just a bad bet,(qoute)over 500 million taxpayer dollars gone somewhere and you were told it was not a sound envestment,you knew it and you still stole the money .are you just plain stupid.and now eric holder is caught lieing about when he knew about fast and furious that killed amercans ,and all you can say is you misunderstood the question,com on people how much more can our country take from this administration,I wonder if everybody knows that it took obama three times to pass the bar exam,and sinse when did america start electing (self admitting crack smokers)I dont think you all checked this non experienced pupet on a chicago thug string.One more thing to all those people out protesting while costing taxpayers millions of dollars for shuttung down the bridge and all the police in each state have to watch you instead of mabe looking for criminals and CRACK dealers ,why dont you go look for work ,i know its hard to do when your getting unemployment and food stmps for ever.Michael moore spashed some water on his head and acts like he dont love his millions of dollars ,why dont you stand by your convictions and give all your money to the people standing around you.And all the dem. senators that voted for obuma care should not be allowed to give any vouchers(peolosi) stand by your convictions. that will be the day.
Too often conservatives argue that the US has the finest health care system in the world. While we may have some of the finest medical providers, the best facilities, excellent medical doctors, that argument lacks the simple fact that IF a person cannot afford those providers, facilities, doctors, then how can one claim we have the best health care system in the world. That would only be true if every American had access to it. 45 million of our fellow citizens cannot afford the insurance. But, hey, according to the GOPTP debate audience--boo those who don't have it, let them die.
Jody, its not a matter of conservatives versus liberals. We do have the finest health care system in the world and its absoulutely true that the delivery of this system is currently not working for everyone. Its just not true that 45 million cant afford insurance, but it is true that 45 million either choose to not participate, are illegal immigrants and cant participate or as you say cant afford it. Where people differ is how to best deliver that fine health care as efficiently and productively as possible to those who cant afford it. Its also not just insurance, its really just bridging the expense gap between what they have now and what is deemed acceptable health care like medicaid or medicare. What many of us disagree with is that Obamacare doesnt deliver health care to these 45 million as efficiently and as cost effective as it could. Thats it not conservative versus liberal and no one wants someone to die so stop being hyperbolic.
Kirk, where is your findings to support your "It is just not true that 45 million cant afford insurance"? It is difficult to assume that and in the same paragraph to say "so stop being so hyperbolic".
Reactionary comments can't be dealt with reactionary debate, yet this is at the front, when those with a conservative bend comment on a situation. Reminds me a lot of the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam, anti-war debates. Support the current policy, with a few tweeks, that amount to special interests hand-outs, like the tort reform that is the banner of health reform by the conservatives, or privatize a existing government program, at the expense of a select group of Americans. I can see privatizing the Space program, which is being done, but they deal in technology where the apparent gain or profit will not amount to a hill of beans to someones health insurance.
"Obamacare" as you have to call it, in a derogatory light as it assumes the POTUS had everything to do with it, much like the "Bush Wars", was a compromise, and as such must be dealt with as such. Please suggest some rational ideas on how this bill can "deliver" health care to everyone, not just the 45 million.
Please get off the soapbox, and relate to those 45 million as equals in your eyes, not someone who is beneath your current status. Remember the Medicare Part D, plan and the "donut hole", the cost out of pocket to those who had the above average prescriptions to fill, yet who drafted that into the Bill? The conservative faction of the Congress, because they did not favor the amount of government control of the measure. Look at the cost out of pocket to those who go threw the donut hole, and the profit the private drug company's are assured from it, the cost is born and payed by those the least fortunate, for the gain of the special interest "drug cartel". Republican/Conservative policy and legislation has supported the business, at the cost of the minority. That is what people are trying to explain to you.
Bob, first off your so off base with me you couldnt be farther from reality. You assume because I am a fiscal conservative that I advocate certain positions that you ascribe to me that are not true. Because I push back on certain conclusions made doesnt mean I advocate any health care solution nor have I stated that I am aware of any solution to your issues. First off, you seem to be wed to a conclusion and dont think before your write. My statement that its just not true that 45 million cant afford insurance is so basic that you really didnt think about it did you before you attacked me. If it wasnt true, then there would be ZERO need for the individual mandate right? If the break down was 85% of us can afford it because we get it today through the government, personal checks or our employers and are doing so today because they are paying for it, the other 15% or 45 million cant afford it, then why do we have the individual mandate. Before attacking me without any knowledge, think about what your write.
Second, I have not been on any soapbox because as I said above, I am for the individual mandate, I dont think privatizing health care is the solution but I also dont think Obamacare is either because again it failed to address delivery efficiently in the most cost effective manner. That has nothing to do with those who can least afford it or donut holes or drug cartels. And yes she is being hyperbolic when she says conservatives just want people to die. Thats like me saying progressives just dont want anyone to be successful and just want to take the money from the successful and hand it over to the crack whore.
You ask me for suggestions, I am not sure I have any good ones but I dont think my opinion that in order to truly address this issue we as a society need to come to grips with the fact that paying for the same quality of health care for those 45 million you state as the other 85% are getting plus add a whole bunch of mandated benefits are going to cause two things, 1) increase in the health care costs for the 85% by a substantial amount and 2) the quality of the benefits we are currently receiving will go down in the aggregate over time. I am not stating that either of those are good or bad, it just defies common sense to think otherwise and these are issues no one wants to really discuss because it means the vast majority of voters (the 85%) wont like it and thats not good for politics and getting reelected.
if obuma care is the answer to our healthcare system,then why are all the demwits giveing out all the vouchers to thier favrorite buss. friends and resturaunts, show us that is the best way to go by setting examples ,all congress people that voted for it,drop your free healthcare and get on the obama wagon,tell the pres to put his childerin on it, no vouchers for your donors ,you better call an ambulance for pisolotsi though cause she would have a heart att. Iwe had our first child in a chartity hosp. ahd it was like any other and the doctors are the same,they all have to perform a certain amount of charity ser. so I guess you are going to get every bum and homeless person and illegal alliens and give them all free healthcare,I know why dont all you share the wealth 200,000 and above dems pay for everybodye healthcare ,show us that great spirit of equal liveing.
Hello, read the Bill the government will be insured under the same law in 2014.
Kirk, I apologise for the reading error, please accept my apology.
It may be that no amount of government control of health care will reduce costs or better healthcare, but it is worth a try.
I am reminded of a Physicianin in 1980 who had a young adult as a protege (me) explain the differances in the practice of medicine in the past to the business of medicine today."Doc's" practice was being consumed by the profit that was expected by his companion Hospital, ruled by the governors and administrators. The last straws were when he knew physicians who could pad a bill on a dying patient, to the pleasure of the governors, who saw it as profit, and were happy to add tenure to the participating Dr.'s stature. Government regulations or Medicare had nothing to do with this injustice, it was a privatly owned business.
I am also reminded of one of my more recent primary care Dr's. who had the habit of prescribing medicine, what ever the symptoms. Later from info I was told about from her husband, drug company's catered to Physicians who prescribed the most of their drugs, with free travel and room to "seminars" about recent developments in their new drug research. All legal, and paid for by the Drug Manufacturers. Data bases available to the Drug Co's show just who and how much medicine is prescribed.
So you see their must be some outside control of such a vital resource we have.
June, huh? That gives Clarence Thomas' wife plenty of time to beef up her lobbying efforts!
Whining?
You know, boys, this is exactly what's wrong with media analysis these days, not to mention with the thought processes of most people.
Whining is when a person complains in a childish way. Look it up.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whine
How on earth would it be "whining" merely to disagree with the Court's decision? Especially in the politically charged climate of this particular Court, where you can predict the outcome of most cases as soon as they are accepted on certiorari.
Lots of respected legal scholars have already said they believe this law is Constitutional. If they say the same thing the day after the Court's decision, will you automatically dismiss them all as whiners, or will you give serious consideration to what they have to say?
I'm voting that you'll dismiss them as whiners. You're already halfway there. And it's so much easier to make a shallow put-down than to do thoughtful analysis.
This whole thing says more about the media than it does about the issues.
I agree with Anna Molly
AM -- Missed the whining part as I didn't watch the video and only read transcript above. Hopefully disagreement with a decision does not constitute whining otherwise everyone would be guilty. : )
Dont_carry_it_all
The "whining" reference comes at the end of the transcript: (boy, are they going to regret giving us this transcript thing-y :)
DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well it could be, but the other part of this though, you know, I know there was one election law blog post which made this point that Obama could run against the Robert's Court again, but does that appeal to independents or moderates to say, you know, look at the Supreme Court, this was a wrong decision, it made a bad--you know, I think there might be a lot of people who would look at it as whining, and they would think you know, yes it would fire up the base, it might help with that, but there's going to be some damage control that the administration would need to do if they are to lose this.
Hi, AM-
Any (it needn't be "lots") respected legal scholars believe the law IS unconstitutional?
They're not "whiners" either, are they, AM?
Anyway, even if you believe they are...
The biggest "whiners" with regard to Obamacare appear to be the majority of the public that isn't at all enthusiastic about it.
In fact, the American public has consistently been among its fiercest critics.
Gotta give Moynihan credit, AM...he warned about passing landmark social legislation without majority support of the public and bipartisan support in the nation's legislature.
That's two strikes.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the SCOTUS calls strike three.
We'll see.
Yes, I've heard that there are. Heck, even I believe the mandate is pretty iffy, not to mention a very bad policy idea.
Not at all. But the reference to "whining" in the article was to what the President's supporters would do if the law was overturned. The assumption apparently being that it will be.
I wonder why that is. Maybe I'll ask Albany Joe about that.
I'd rank Republicans in Congress and right-wing pundits pretty high up there on the "whiner" scale, Bag Boy. But sometimes people just suffer from lack of information. The part about pre-existing conditions, for example -- I'll bet if you asked them, most people would favor it.
Heck, YOU probably favor it.
Me, either. But you already know that.
Just for fun, I wonder if the SCOTUS sits around watching replays of the Obama's 2010 State of the Union speech. You know, the one where Obama publicly admonishes them, a separate but equal branch of government, for voting that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals.
Payback is a feisty.
JAS1 -- More court cases to come:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Maybe an investigation will follow not sure.
Anna Molly-
Might I suggest...at the risk of incurring your considerable wrath...that we could have had bipartisan health care reform legislation (including the addressing of the pre-existing conditions issue) simply by including a couple of provisions intended to restrain the rising cost of health care premiums?
Here's the deal, AM...
In January, 2009, it was extremely hard to mess up the issue of "health care reform"...who WASN'T for "health care reform"?
Anyone?
Most ordinary health care consumers (like...well, like ME, for example) felt that "health care reform" ought to address the issue of rising health care premiums for the health care that the majority of us actually like, and would very much like to keep...if only we can continue to pay the rising costs associated with it.
Had President Obama insisted on credible tort reform (aimed at getting at the costs of "defensive medicine") and the ability of consumers to purchase health care tailored to their needs from a menu of nationwide plans (in order to FORCE providers to lower prices or hold the line to compete for health care consumer dollars), he would have ensured bipartisan support for his health care reform legislation.
Instead, as physician, former Vermont governor, and former-DNC Chairman Howard Dean told a townhall audience for Virginia U.S. Rep. Jim Moran in August, 2009, the Democrats didn't want to take on the trial lawyer lobby.
No increased competition for providers nationally, either.
President Obama is responsible, more than any other individual, for the unpopularity of his "signature legislative achievement".
If I'm wrong about what I've said, AM...let's see if President Obama and Congressional Democrats choose to run in the 2012 general election on the wonderful health care legislation they've forced on an unwilling American public.
Wanna bet on that, AM?
JoAnna-
"Payback is a feisty."
You naughty, naughty girl.
LoL Why would you think I'd be upset about that?
It may very well be what we end up with ... if we're lucky.
Done. You know how much I LOVE to lose, Bag Boy. ;-)
Outstanding question DaNoid and thanks guys (Mark, Domenico and Pete) for choosing to address this important case with the adherent issues involved.
Wonder if the folks in Waxahatchie Texas have good health care?
Wonder how the folks in Waxahatchie Texas feel about 'onerus' regulations of industry?
Probably not. More than 25 percent of Texas's population is uninsured.
http://www.healthinsurance.org/texas
Rick Perry phoned to say that the ingrates should stop their whining.
Drive By -- Awful what just happened in Texas and I hope everyone around that chemical plant is safe. Texas has been clobbered with both the droughts then fires now this. My heart goes out them.
OMG I hadn't even seen that before I wrote my comment. But it appears that no one was injured ... so far.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/03/us/texas-chemical-fire/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Thank heaven. And I believe that the surrounding area has been evacuated.
Okay. Now, someone should tell those folks not to worry about any long-term effects. After all, the dedicated pollution fighters of Texas government are on the case.
And they're VERY familiar with the concept of measuring pollution.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/29/us/politics/texas-air-pollution-compared-to-other-states.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydaylife/archives/HP_ILP_Feature_03.html
But Republicans assure us that regulating those plants would kill jobs. It's a lot better to kill people than jobs. Especially low wage jobs without health care benefits.
Anna -- I went to catch up on the news and caught the story myself and then it made sense what DB said.
Yikes! What a mess.
Amanda Knox FREE!!!
As a cancer survivor, I can't wait for the preexisting conditions exemption to kick back in. Can't wait to be turned down again for insurance again because I had cancer. Or if I do get insurance, can't wait for the policy to run out of cash. I'm 54 only 11 years to medicare, I guess that could be history to. Thank You my good Republican Americans!
Yo Smitty!
Didn't you hear P.T. Smith? Keep your comments relevant to the article! (Supreme Court comments only!)
Ol' P.T. is the comment police you know! (I wonder how the Supreme Court feels about freedom of speech?)
(show me the clown nose fisty!)
Believe it or not, SOB, a cancer survivor's remarks on whether the Supreme Court strikes down HCR or not, are relevant to the issue. Think about it.
Republicans: making every issue about winning back the presidency.
Is Smitty merely "whining," SoTB?
Amy is right. But from reading above, I also think you were kidding.
At least I hope so.
WRONG Amy!
The discussion is specifically about whether or not it is constitutional to force all Americans to purchase a product, that being health insurance.
The discussion is NOT about preexisting conditions!
Try to stay on topic or P.T. Smith will scold you!
(show me the clown nose fisty!)
LoL I was right. ;-)
That's a good question for a follow-up SOB, if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate portion of the law does the whole thing get struck down, including the protections against losing your insurance once you get sick, the ban on lifetimes caps and the provision for parents to keep offspring on their policy up to age 26?
Just an FYI...
Amy, your follow-up comment is something I have contemplated.
I have a 22 year old son who is in his senior year of college. He has Type-I Diabetes and requires insulin every day. After he graduates, given the job market... he may need my insurance just to survive.
So yes... Preexisting conditions and covering children until age 26 is an issue for my family as well... but the case under consideration is not about that.
It will be interesting to see where this all shakes out. I can tell you that even if the law had not changed and my son were not covered on my insurance, I would have found a way to pay for his medication until he could land a job and get on a group policy through work. It is what good parents do.
Amy,
This topic has not gone away, you and your beloved media have just backed off. It has been at the fore front before the election talks began. While you stew in your self rightious waters of social medicine, the courts have been ruling on this, now the supreme court will, and you will spin its defeat toward a win for obama. Which is fine as long as you keep losing.
SOB,
Remember 9 months ago when the Teapublican controlled House repealed the ACA (HCR)? When running for their job they promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. So your comment is in the Teapublicans hands – where is the replacement bill??????
Do you really think there ever will be a replacement bill … I don’t.
MRWSR.
What's worse is, if the mandate is thrown out, and this affects the whole bill, than the 1 million young adults recently added to their parents' policies will no longer be covered.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-21/young-adults-health-insurance/50499620/1
They will still be covered in states like mine that were visionary enough to do it themselves. Ironically, there is a bill pending currently to conform our provision to the federal law -- ours being a bit more generous -- which appears to assume that the federal bill will be upheld.
But it's not entirely clear yet whether the Court would rule the mandate to be severable, even though there is no severability provision in the final bill.
Ruling the mandate severable would be a rare piece of Solomonic wisdom, coming from this Court. But it would also generate new energy to repeal the whole thing because insurers have long since said that the rest of the bill does not work without the source of additional revenue provided in the mandate.
On a personal level, I can't believe a public option could have been more contentious than this has been. And, a lot harder to challenge, given that Medicare has already been upheld.
Amy,
Spin all you want. Said you would. No doubt there needs to be reform, not sure anybody is debating that. But keep your sob stories, read the CBO numbers. Its over.
Dennis,
I love to listen to the left spin things. They love to scream where are the jobs and where is the health care bill... things like that.
But if you think about it... the republicans have sent a LOT of legislation to the senate where is sits on a shelf. Once old Harry Reid is out of the way and the repubs take back the senate things will start to move again.
I also think its smart of the republicans to wait on the repeal of the HCR Act until the SCOTUS has had its say. Lets face it... the SCOTUS may speed that whole thing along and we all know that there are plenty of other things the house repubs can spend their time on (only to have Harry sit on it). Once the SCOTUS does its part... then the new HCR can begin.
It WILL happen and you WILL whine about like all libbies. :-)
SOB you take ass to a whole new level. Sorry I'm off topic.
Thank you Smitty! (classy:-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy, isn't it a shame that Obama and the Dems did that to them?
I'm curious. Exactly HOW did "Obama and the Dems" do that?
SOB,
They knew that the repeal would die in the Senate but that didn’t stop them from proceeding with the repeal so why is it that they can’t do the same thing with the “replacement bill?” Could it because they don’t have a plan like many other important problems our country faces? They block everything and have no alternative plan so I believe it is because they don’t want another social program {period}.
You know, Amy... by jamming that POS down our collective throats. I mean... Even Nasty Pelosi admitted that she did not know what was in it... "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."
So... before they knew what they had, they packaged it and slapped a sticker on it and BAM! They were so excited by the fact that they could do it, that the didn't stop to think about whether they should do it.
And now we give to the masses only to take it away. Isn't that CRUEL, Amy? Thanks Dems! Thanks a lot!
SOB
You have a funny idea of "crammed down our throats."
Amy,
That may be but I am not alone. :-)
BTW... what do you call it when they push for a vote of YES when they admittedly do not know what is in the bill they are voting on?
And guess what... the bill was unliked not only by conservatives, but also by liberals... albeit for different reasons.
So I believe that 'crammed' is the appropriate word.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW... it is nice to have a pleasant, adult discussion with you all. You see, it CAN happen. All we need to do is get the 'children' out of here... My guess is they are gone to the circus today... They just love the clowns I hear. ;-)
Sick, I know the GOP loves to keep perpetuating that lie by taking it out of context but here is what Nancy Pelosi actually said:
Kinda changes the whole perspective now, doesn't it?
MARK and DOMENICO -- Can we get a few of these politicians over for a Q & A????
Anna Molly, I agree with you that whining is the wrong word, but your definition of right or wrong constitutional law can be applied to all the controversial issues. As you well know, there are a significant number of constitutional legal experts that would say that Roe v Wade was a very bad decision even if the expert was pro choice. I am pro choice and I struggle with the concept of a constitutional right to privacy versus this being something that should be handled by the legislative branch with the creation of laws that govern. I know you would be surprised but I see the constitutional issues with the individual mandate and its unclear to me whether that would survive supreme court scrutiny. However, my issue with Obamacare has nothing to do with the mandate and I think if we are going to tackle health care in a real meaningful sense, an individual mandate is an economic necessity. Unfortunately Obamacare for partisan reasons by both sides of the aisle is very bad law in which the intended and unintended consequences are going to be far worse that anticipated and it really doesnt address health care spending. I am not against universal care but just like social security the national debate never really addresses the sensitive issues. The bottom line is that 85% of us have decent to very good health care benefits and 15% of us have none. Plus the rising cost for the 85% is unsustainable. In order to bring the benefits of the 15% and the quality of care up to the level of the other 85% and to control the expense growth, one of two things has to happen and very likely both. The 85% are going to have to share a much bigger burden of the their own and others health care costs in the aggregate. We are already seeing that with the addition of dependents until age 26, coverage of contraceptives, elimination of maximums etc but we also are seeing wide spread revolt against paying more. The unions dont want to pay more, the retirees dont want to pay more, corporations that provide employer provided coverage dont want to pay more. Second and the hardes to swallow, if we include the 15% and control costs, the quality and coverage of care for the average person has to go down or be reduced. It just does and whether you call that rationing or elimination of waste it just has to go down. Obamacare doesnt address either of these which is why its a very bad bill and I personally think its designed (because of the fine on corporations) to incent corporations to drop coverage so we move to a national health care debate and universal care.
Kirk,
Did the following ever occur to you?
1. United States and New Zealand are the only 2 countries that permit prescription drug advertising directly to the consumer.
2. Letting the "market decide" how your medical care is paid for and administered is really a "death panel" and does not guarantee you the best medical care for the premiums you pay.
3. Overuse of the ER by the uninsured is really a "tax" on those with insurance in the form of higher premiums.
4. If you are required to purchase auto insurance, then why shouldn't you be required to purchase health insurance?
5. Is a healthy workforce in the national interest? It is in most of the industrialized world!
Torpedo, not sure what the difference or why you asked if it occurred to me? What did I say that was a disconnect from your questions? Your questions are certainly factors and issues that need to be addressed although I am not sure why you pick on these 5. There are certainly many more. I used to be in charge of funding and designing the cost structure for my employer provided health care covering about 40,000 employees so I understand the financial side of these issues very well. But I will respond to your 5 if you want.
1) no I didnt but I am not sure of the cost/benefit analysis of this because a highly profitable drug manufacturer is also spending enormously on new drugs which is good for all of us
2) Totally agree but neither is the current system and its worse under Obamacare
3) Its not just the ER, mandating coverage or benefits is also just additional costs picked up by us. There is no real health care insurance. Insurance companies really just administer health care for a profit and in the aggregate, the insured us and corporations pick up the entire aggregate cost of health care. So as expenses rise, we generally pay 25% of the increase and employers 75%
4. Not a good analogy as auto insurance is a state mandate and you only have to buy it if you drive a car. Health care mandate didnt give you that choice and it was federal but as I said above, I would be for the individual mandate if we addressed the other issues too
5. Of course
Kirk...I spent 18 years in the parenteral manufacturing business drug business and I can tell you now that our country is indirectly subsidizing our European friends and Canada. Those "socialized" countries negotiate the price of their drugs with the manufacturers. We don't in this country so your fellow Americans bear the cost. Who do you think pays for the direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs in this country?
Torpedo, I understand how it works but so are you saying that we should eliminate the profit aspect from the US? You do realize that this profit also allows the US to subsidize the provision of malarial drugs the world over,AIDS medications in Asia and Africa so there is some positive aspect. However, I agree the US is paying a mark up for the cost of drugs developed in the US and sold elsewhere at lower margins. If you eliminate that markup without at the same time increasing the markup around the world so you eliminate the size of the profits drug companies make you 1) reduce the amount of research and development by the companies and the size of the incentive to develop new drugs, 2) if their profits are dramatically reduced you reduce the value of these companies which are owned by institutions which in general are all of us in our 401(k) accounts, union pension plans and college endowments. Thus, your basically just taxing the rest of us. What is your solution to that?
False Equivalency argument since many if not most "New Drugs" are are a combination of the "public" and private sector. Here is the link:
the Human Genome Project largely funded by your tax dollars.
Is all this "socialism."?
Not even sure what you mean by false equivalency and why the attitude. Have I been tough on you on this issue? There has been a long history of government and drug research being intertwined and subsidized by government and researchers developing drugs and taking them to pharma to get rich. But I dont see how this changes things. Do you think the profit motive doesnt enhance research? I also noticed you didnt respond to the other unintended consequences
Health Care debate?
When I vote again for President Obama, my message with respect to health care insurance and health care is this: I want single payer. I want any and all profit motive removed from health care. I want an end to any reference to pre-existing health conditions. I want wellness education to be at least as important as any other function of health care. I want a continuation of cracking down on polluters so we may have clean air, water, and soil; that's pretty damned important for our health. I want everyone to get current on their end-of-life decisions.
For improving my mental health, I want the complete elimination of extremists from the Republican Party.
likewise on the democrats, as well as their belief that money (OPM) solves all problems.
By the way what salary limits do you propose for doctors, nurses, aides and administrators? Will the government pay for all research regarding drug development and medical equipment?
WRT the environment will clean air, water and soil ever be obtained with an ever increasing global population and the populaces need to keep up with the joneses? Quite a conflict of goals there.
Dumb, Dumb, and Dumb!!!!
American..I would suggest you google Jonas Salk.
David, with all due respect.........try taking good care of yourself and maybe you can make it to the age when you can receive Medicare. That is single payer for seniors. OOOOPSS, I forgot...... OBAMA WANTS TO GUT $500 BILLION from it !
Leona:
I do try taking care of myself. That may be one of the reasons I survived Viet Nam. I do have single-payer thanks to the likes of you, Agent Orange, and the Veterans Administration. Single-payer works just fine.
Do your damned homework instead of regurgitating reactionary talking points. President Obama did not propose gutting $500-billion from Medicare. That's an outright lie.
American:
Let's just see how ridiculous we can get here? Why don't you ask me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If we do end up with single-payer, I have every confidence we will be able to come up with a fair pay schedule for health care providers. However, salaries/compensation/remuneration probably won't head into the seven, eight, and nine-figure range as they do with some of these thieving health insurance executives.
David, do you want the profit motive removed from hospitals, pharmaceuticals, health care products like orthopedics and surgery equipment, doctors etc? I assume you mean you want to to eliminate the profit in insurance administration? You still have to pay those costs to somebody to administer.
David, I do not lie, I read alot:
"It is true that the $500 billion savings from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law. That's because Democrats wanted to make sure they did not increase the federal deficit with the new health law. The savings from Medicare offset new spending resulting from the health care bill. Mostly, the new spending in the health care law comes from tax credits to help people of modest incomes buy health insurance and from expanding Medicaid to offer coverage to the poor. The tax credits and other cost-sharing subsidies are estimated to cost $350 billion over 10 years, while the Medicaid expansion costs $434 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.Those two initiatives add up to more than $500 billion."
ummmm, maybe you should ...."Do your damned homework instead of regurgitating (liberal) talking points."
Leona:
Just for starters and because it is the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard - a lot is two words.
Now, as to the rest of your post, I note that suddenly the $500-billion has morphed from Medicare gutting to Medicare savings.
Sorry Leona, I'm really tired of this tactic. We frame the debate, we define the words, hell, we change the rules as we see fit. I'm not playing.
Kirk:
You are correct. Someone has to pay the costs of administration. Those costs need not be in the stratosphere.
My turn to play Grand Inquisitor. Where is the efficiency of private enterprise to be ferreted out in this little reality? We pay twice what other industrialized nations do for health care. Even at that we still cannot insure approximately one-sixth of our population. But let's not pretend, the government still picks up that tab, while private health insurers are cherry picking. That's the truth and you know it. Further, our health care quality is rated less than other nations. Where is the efficiency in private enterprise health care delivery? Where is this excellence that ALWAYS comes with private enterprise? You know, like we get with Lockheed, with Penn Central, with GM, ad nauseum. Did I miss the wonderfulness of private enterprise in the banking biz as those goddamned thieves damn near collapsed the world?
How is it, I can go to the V.A., have my blood work done, and in 15 minutes the results are on my doctor's computer? It is not only available to MY doctor, but to any doctor in the V.A. health care system, who has authorized access; that's across the entire United States, not just locally. That doesn't happen with private enterprise. How is it that I can have an X-ray taken, and within minutes it is in the computer system for my doctor? That doesn't happen in private enterprise. There aren't 300 different forms to fill out for insurance reimbursement. I could go on.
Why is it a private enterprise insurance clown in an executive suite makes more than a surgeon?
There's something very, very wrong with the private enterprise end of health care, and no one on the right has the guts to admit they are wrong.
I'm sick of hearing about the profit motive. The fact is, R & D costs and other business expenses are tax-deductible. So, I don't want to hear about how unfairly Big Pharma is treated. They are entitled to a reasonable profit. There is no doubt about that. It's time patients and citizen taxpayers had something of a say in what is reasonable, not just those with the deepest pockets who can afford a legion of lobbyists.
Let's stop pretending that private enterprise is the perfect purveyor of goods and services. Indeed, I could show you example after example of corporate incompetence and thievery. Enron, anyone? Tyco, anyone? There's plenty more, and you know it. Indeed, the majority of all businesses fail within the first five years.
I don't have it in for private enterprise. That's where I made my living. But I'm damned sure not one of those lemming/lackeys who is going to believe the nonsense that private health insurance is the best solution we have for health care. It's just plain BS.
David --
Although I am not perfect in grammar or spelling sometimes this is a pet peeve of mine too. Your other post made me laugh out loud David (#9). You sure say it like you see it. Carry on my friend.
Yes, it is apparent the neo-conservative view of "free enterprise" as explained by theory, will not account for those people and Corporations that do not fit, or those "lazy liberals" who have a different view of the debate.
Well said David, they will discuss the theory or rational on their own terms, yet when asked about the reality, they shudder to think, and must revert back to dwell on the thought . Damn. reality really can mess up there heads and picture perfect world.
They ask for de-regulation, yet they want more regulation when it comes to "tort reform", we mustn't let those lawyers in on the health industry, shudder to think of all the "unnecessary" tests preformed because of the fear of a tort case, so lets regulate that out of the business, it is only right for free "enterprise".
Kirk, is a administrator, he must defend his calling.
Just ask your Dr., how much of their time is spent on filling out private insurance forms versus Medicare or Government requirements. I have and mine says their is no comparison. Private insurance has formulary's for procedures and drugs, some are based on their association with other manufacturers in the health industry,( call it pay-back) and may have little to do with what is best in the Dr.s' eyes as the best treatment.
Those who complain about the pay back to unions and government or liberal handouts, should also be aware of the business tactics which make our health system less efficient and unproductive as far as the patients bill of rights.
torpedo - why? I wasn't the one suggesting pay limits in healthcare, but I was asking for what david thought would be appropriate. Is salk a true representative example of a pay structure you think other healthcare professionals should follow?
David - then be clearer in what you want to say, for obamacare has been passed, EPA rules apply only to our country and our environment is also affected by what happens globally.
As for republican extremists, wishfull thinking on your part as political extremists (L&R) will always be here.
David, you know darn well that $500 billion "savings" from Medicare is the Democrats way of saying they are gutting $500 billion from Medicare. Say it any way you want, Obama is taking $500 billion AWAY from Medicare to use it so Obamacare does NOT appear to raise the deficit. People like yourself only use semantics to suit your own narrative. That does NOT negate the truth. Obama/Democrats use(s) scare tactics with seniors about Medicare and then do exactly what they say the Repubs are going to do. A scare tactic is all they've got..
2012 GO GOP !!!!
Bob, I am definitely not an administrator and no calling to defend actually a reformed lawyer and finance guy now. Your comments dont really make any sense in the context of health care and I am lost as to how tort reform is more government regulation as its quite the opposite but my guess you dont understand how the legal malpractice system works.
David, I agree with some of what you say especially about administration but just as you point out examples of private enterprise that doesnt work that can be done with government provided health care also. I agree there currently isnt the right incentives for everyone involved to clean up the administration and reduce the costs associated but I am not sure eliminating the profit motive in all cases makes sense. Not sure if thats what you are advocating. I think your laying too much of the blame on insurance companies and not enough on the government, employers, unions and recipients who all have a share of the blame based on their respective motives. We all the know the egregious cases related to the insurance companies but for the most part when your talking about employer provided insurance or union insurance plans, the employers or contract dictate the benefits and the insurance company charges a 30% fee for administering it. They are just doing what the employer or union contract tells them to do and they earn profit on that revenue of about 5-7% so I dont think insurance companies are to blame when you are talking employer provided insurance. Because the way the contracts work, doctors are incented based on quantity not quality so we are burdened with every test, every visit and without tort reform, they have all the risk of failure to perform all of these tests and visits. Recipients like you and me, demand all the best drugs for the cheapest price so that creates this marketing opportunity for the drug companies. Limiting their profit isnt really the answer, its creating more market based negotiations and contracts.
As for R&D being tax deductible, not sure how that has any relevance to profit motive. So its deductible all that means is that is saves them 35% in tax on every dollar spent but it still costs them 65% and if it doesnt produce anything its a sunk cost so point is irrelevant. The fact that there are failed corporations or ethical lapses in private enterprise is not surprising as we have that in government and society in general dont you think?
I never said that private enterprise was the solution to health care delivery. I think our current delivery system is completely messed up with the wrong incentives across the board and I am probably for the individual mandate but I dont think Obamacare as currently passed, solves anything and probably will make it worse once the fine kicks in and employers drop health care for everyone. What we need to face is that in order to provide health care for the 45 million who are getting inferior health care delivery today, the remaining 85% are going to have to pay substantially more and level of our benefits in the aggregate must go down. Nobody wants to discuss those two issues because it makes people mad. Its like the new mandates for dependants up to age 26, no life time maximums and covering female contraceptives 100% everyone says yes we want our insurance to cover that but they get really mad when they find out that there premiums went up by alot. Nothing is cost free and a zero sum game.
Kirk, if you "are a finance guy now" and don't consider yourself a administrator, I can see why you don't want to see my logic. Personally you do not manufacture something out of our natural resources, but human resources, that is administrating to many.
"Your comments do not make any sense" shows your lack of respect, and bias as you refuse to debate them, typical for the conservative to deny, and hide behind ignorance.
Tort reform, is a form of regulating health care as it takes away the right of the individuals case to be judged on a individual manner. It is wrong to believe that the procedures and tests required to legally exempt a Dr. or Health Insurance Co. from litigation should be limited. The Dr.-patient relationship should be upheld at all cost, irregardless of the monetary consequences. So your "I imagine" comment is just that, as you have not addressed the subject at all. Remember, when the for profit business entity finds their policy unaffordable they should change that policy in order to produce efficient profit, and that is what litigation will do.
Ignorance is bliss.
Good Day.
Kirk, I also stand behind my personal experience with my Dr.. The amount of paperwork and office time for the health provider, yes the Dr.,Hospital, medical service provider, is much more for private insurance providers.
Others in this post have given you concrete, day to day personal experience, on a common level, that all can relate to, yet you talk of theory and non-supported views. You are pragmatic.
Bob, I am more than willing to debate but your condescending nature of your comments to me make it difficult. I am not ignorant as I am a reformed lawyer and dealt with plantiffs lawyers all the time. Tort reform is something that is definitely needed from my personal opinion and I am a lawyer and my wife is a litigator so its not as if I dont get this issue. So many frivilous cases are filed based on contingent fee basis that is dramatically increases the cost of health care. Your response on tort reform didnt even make sense in your post. Not sure how the dr patient relationship is upheld at all costs and that profitable business entity finds their policy stuff even applies. You can think I am ignorant all you want but I dont know any economist who feels differently in terms of health care expenses.
You keep making fun of conservative views but what have you put forth that actually responds to anything I have posted? Explain to me what opinions besides tort reform you think I am wrong and why instead of just making fun of my finance or administrative skills or lack thereof. You think Obamacare cured all woes?
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
Kirk , above you will find one of numerous articles and educational study's, which are contrary to your supposed life experience. As a educated man, you surely know how to Google "How much will tort reform affect health care costs". The consensus is that litigation is 1 to 3 % of our health costs. The reality of tort reform is to remove monetary value to a human life, yes lower costs for the insurance and provider, yet those reductions will not make it back to the consumer. They will be used to lobby and legislate more reductions in the responsibility of the business, that is the truth and that is business.You can try to prove me wrong, but next time use facts and study's.
The patient-doctor privilege is compromised when insurance and health providers require a multitude of forms and formulary's (their drugs, and their providers) in order to pay their share for treatment. That is the truth, and not mandated by government.
Also your reference to "unions" in this discussion leaves no other conclusion than they are not good for the health care system. Care to explain your comment to us.
Many have posted the obvious before, of the callous disregard insurance has for pre-existing conditions, the cost of advertising by Drug Co's to the general public, the pay-back the providers and drug Co's. give to those Dr.'s and Hospitals who are the most profitable for them, none of it involves the government.
I pay more for my personal/ property liability insurance, than the 1 to 3% of health care costs that all providers expend for all litigation, yet you believe that they are getting the raw deal. That is why you are so funny to me.
I believe the current Health Care Reform Bill, please don't refer to it as you do, it is condescending, much like "Bush's Wars", or "Wall Street Bail-Out", may be of merit, as the political advantage is not as apparent as MedicarePartD, for instance. Many legislative bills that have passed with-out the vote buying politics, as this one certainly has, have historically benefited our society in the long term with appropriate amendments.
The jury is still out, and the mis-information is rampant much like the Social Security Act of 1933, or the Civil Rights Bill of the 60's. Time will tell whether the big corporate interests will allow the single-payer option to be included. Big business will be the providers and we as the government will be the payers. Really don't know if business wants to give up the insurance/payer part as it is too profitable, and thus would be a radical change to our society. Usually the government expands in areas where the profit margin is not attainable for a private industry, and that may be where we are headed with the economy, and % of those without private insurance.
You see, history tells us that some 50% of Americans were considered in poverty before the Social Security Act was made law, and the ability for our private industry to support that many till death was not possible. The same could be said today as the burden of those who will "have not" may become to much of a burden for our private industry.
Bob, I refer to it as Obamacare because its easy and I guess I dont see that slang reference as derogatory and not sure why you do or anyone else. But if HCR is better then I will do it for this discussion. I will disagree somewhat with the article you posted because I dont believe it actually captures all the costs and let me give you a real life example. But before I do, let me say that I used tort reform as just one issue that could have been very easy to address but wasnt for political partisan reasons. The Trial Lawyers Association and lobby and not because of the doctor patient relationship or cost/benefit analysis. It would have been an easy bipartisan compromise to get more people on board. In Indiana, its been very successful but how much gets brought to the bottom line, its hard to tell but I agree less gets back to the consumer and more gets captured within the system primarily by the doctors themselves. I get that but not sure I find that bad when the doctors are getting squeezed by medicare reimbursements and the insurance mandates so much. But back to my example, my wife is pregnant with my 4th child. 20 years difference between oldest and now youngest. With the first three, they were born without having an ultrasound, fetal monitors until delivery and weekly doctor visits. This one is going to be borne at Northwestern with zero complications or issues identified to date. My wife has had at least 6 ultrasounds, fetal monitor hookups at each visit, probably at least 10 visits to the doctor so far and at each visit she has had lab workups. At one blood test, she was told one sugar level was high and sent to an endicrinologist for potential gestational diabetes. She went to this specialist 3 times with many more tests. My roommate from college is a perinatologist or high risk baby doctor who I finally contacted and his response was that medicine is all about avoiding risk with babies. He said she wasnt even close to having gestational diabetes but with one elevated score they can make reference and get insurance reimbursement and monitoring and all the ultrasounds, blood tests and checks are to make sure they have zero risk of problems which clearly isnt good medicine. How do you quantify the legal costs inherent in each of these tests because your study doesnt factor that in.
Not sure what my reference to unions and why but they certainly have very little impact on this discussion. But the people who have posted about the callous disregard insurance has for pre-existing conditions, the cost of advertising by the drug companies didnt really respond to my responses as my comments in reply. I agree the preexisting condition problem is significant but I dont blame the insurance companies. I blame our health care delivery system. If you have a preexisting condition, then by its nature your going to cost more in health care than you are paying in. So the question really is who is going to pay that. Insurance companies really are just administrators and its not their job to pay for actual health care expenses as that risk is either borne by employers in employer provided insurance or borne by the risk pool that you are in if individually purchased. So if the employer picks you up (which is mandated now) you are making the employer and the other employees pick up the cost of the person with the preexisting condition--I dont know if thats fair or not just a financial reality or if you are in a pool, you are forcing the other members of the pool to pick it up with higher premiums. I get the issue and why insurance companies so no because they are told to say no and we need to come up with a way to fix that issue. Second the drug companies and their advertising. I dont like the legal kickbacks with hospitals and doctors but the advertising doesnt really bother me nor does the profit motive in whith Pharma as that helps create the great pipeline we have today. Nobody could provide me with a drug company from some other country anywhere else in the world that competes with ours. So obviously the profit motive works right? I dont hear of too many chinese drug companies or drug companies in socialized or highly regulated economies developing new drugs. We certainly dont want to stop that with our health care fix.
I agree that there is misinformation but I dont think the jury is still out. I am not sure I understand your points about big corporate interests in insurance payouts. HCR actually will create the incentive via the fine for virtually all employers to drop employer provided health care benefits which as of the most recent count by the wall street journal will move over 87 million new people into the exchanges which by its nature will reduce the level of benefits you got from your employer. I think thats pretty radical. I also dont think insurance profit is very high. The insurance companies generally charge a 30% revenue margin and make between 5-7 cents on every dollar as profit. Could the government do it better I highly doubt it and the margins are certainly not big enough for someone to be screaming for that business.
I never said that like many conservatives we should just leave health care alone and I am firmly in the camp that we need to do something to address it but I am also in the camp that HCR was a horrible partisan bill that doesnt address the real issues we are facing. In addition, no different than the conservatives who want to do nothing, the progressives who want to eliminate all profit from this industry see panacea when its not there.
american, why omg?
Is there anyone you have in mind? All you have is a pack of peckineses acting as buldogs. And much dummer.
And like any dogs they DO BELONG TO SOMEONE.
David, Get a job!!!
oceanLLL...Get lost and return to your place at the bottom of the gene pool.
We already have a model for a "single payer" system in this country. It is called MEDICARE.
A worker earning $5400.00 mo. Pays about $78.00 mo along with his employer's matching contribution or $156.00 between the two or about 2% of earned income. (Hedge fund managers currently do not pay into Medicare for capital gains).
Remember there is a difference between earned income (salary) and investment income.
Take the profit motive out of medicine {Think of the Jonas Salk Model}; Remember the Polio epidemics of the 50's when it was decided that it was in the national interest to vaccinate the entire population at a very modest cost. That was a government program.
Imagine the competitive advantage this country would have if the risks and cost of medical care was spread across the entire population and employers were not burdened with outrageous healthcare costs.
A difficult concept for conservatives to grasp.
We already have a model for a "single payer" system in this country. It is called MEDICARE.
A worker earning $5400.00 mo. Pays about $78.00 mo along with his employer's matching contribution or $156.00 between the two or about 2% of earned income. (Hedge fund managers currently do not pay into Medicare for capital gains).
Remember there is a difference between earned income (salary) and investment income.
Take the profit motive out of medicine {Think of the Jonas Salk Model}; Remember the Polio epidemics of the 50's when it was decided that it was in the national interest to vaccinate the entire population at a very modest cost. That was a government program.
Imagine the competitive advantage this country would have if the risks and cost of medical care was spread across the entire population and employers were not burdened with outrageous healthcare costs.
TorpedoYou-- I agree 100%.
Health care should have never become a for profit industry!
I believe the only real solution to the healthcare problem is for the government take over some of it. Let people who have insurance that they like alone. Let insurance companies alone.
Set up a govt. program that the govt. will pay off a drs.' medical school loans if he/she signs a contract for 5-7 years at 100k per year. Open up military hospitals and any bankrupt hospitals and send any person on medicare or medicaid to these places ONLY. The doctors would benefit by having their school loans paid off, and by not having to pay malpractice insurance since they are govt. employees. Even older drs would probably like something like this because they would not have the expense of paying for offices and nurses and administrators. Since all govt. paid for services would be provided by govt. drs and facilities, there would be no need for paperwork to recieve payment by the drs. They would already be getting paid, and no fraud because it would not matter if they saw 1 or 100 patients and would not matter if they ran 1 or 20 tests.
Regular hospitals and doctors not employed by the govt. would be profitable because they wouldn't have to accept lower payments for services or subsidize non-paying clients. And emergenciy rooms wouldn't be crammed full of people with colds, tummyaches, etc.
Let the people choose to participate or not. Charge them a set, affordable amount as they would be charged if they had insurance. It could be set up something similar to what the Medicare program is now, but with higher rates.
Sounds great, but the private lobbying from the insurance Co's, and their Congressional henchmen, would water down the Bill, before it passed. And even if it did pass untouched, the funding and government necessary to accomplish the job would have to fight tooth and nail, every session of Congress. Not so with the Corporate/Private sector as they can just pass their lobbying costs on to their customers.
You see the private business is the one who benifits from the government policy, monatarily, and their is no way they want to be cut from that piece of the pie.
When I think about taking the profit out of health care, it's not about preventing doctors or pharmaceutical companies from making a profit. It's about the health insurance companies. Their decisions to allow or deny coverage is based on their profit margin - not the best interest of the patient. And anyone who has been in the healthcare field for more than five minutes can vouch for that. These are the real death panels, and they exist now.
Before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama, health insurance premiums were rising at double digits, Look at the increases from 2000-2005 and tell me what Republican leaders were proposing to deal with it. We pay more than economically comparative countries but don't receive any better care. If anyone tells you differently, find out what their vested interest is in having the public believe it gets the best care - you can bet there's either a huge profit motive or campaign contribution attached to their "facts".
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/06/business/metrics-health-care-outlier.html
I want to vomit every time I hear someone say that we have the best healthcare delivery system in the world. We need a federally mandated system BECAUSE our current system IS AWFUL. We have death rates (and particularly infant mortality rates) equivalent to parts of the THIRD WORLD. And we spend TWICE AS MUCH as most first world countries for this awful healthcare delivery system. FIRST OUTRAGE: Over 40 million have NO healthcare. SECOND: Our system is so much about prescription medications (older people often take six or seven medications) and enormous end of life expenditures that jack up the cost for everybody. THIRD: Many are in jeopardy of having an insurance company deny them procedures that actually work. FOURTH: Overall, the costs are enormous and increasing by over 10% per year. And the insurance companies maintain ENORMOUS advertising budgets and still ladle off alot of profit at the end of the process. IT IS A BAD SYSTEM that is bankrupting us. A single payer system would be better, but the Republicans said NO, so Obamacare is essentially NIXONcare - only less.
As to the Constitutional debate, the individual mandate requires citizens to buy healthcare OR pay a tax. If you buy a house, you pay lower taxes. If you rent, you pay higher taxes. Buy a Chevy Volt, pay less tax. Buy a gas guzzler, pay more tax. Make a choice and it affects your tax bill. Lots of things work that way. The Government could say, don't buy health insurance and emergency rooms CANNOT treat you. The tax is more humane. I know Republicans would prefer the "lem 'em die" approach.
Since when do we involve "humane" treatment in a conservative policy? Can anyone please tell me of one private business enterpise that is affordable to all people, no matter what the income or tax status? Yet that is what the conservative believe is sufficient for our society, the haves and the haves not. Those who have not just have to work harder to be a have. Talk about class warfare.
Oh, yes they will say the charity of the people will account for those less fortunate, while at the same time they tell Warren Buffitt, to shut-up and send a check to the Treasury, if he thinks he is not paying enough taxes.