E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. Supreme Court could decide as early as two weeks from now whether to take up the titanic legal battle over President Obama's health care law.
The court revealed today that the first of the challenges to reach the Supreme Court will come before the justices on Nov. 10th, during one of their regular weekly conferences where they decide, in private, which cases to hear. Legal experts are nearly unanimous in believing that the court will agree to hear the health-care issue during its current term, but there's no deadline for the justices to act on whether to do so. If the court agrees in November to take up the health care issue, it would probably be argued in March, with a decision by late June.
The Supreme Court could decide as early as two weeks from now whether to take up the titanic legal battle over President Obama's health care law. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
If the court agrees on Nov. 10th to take any or all of the cases, we could hear that day, or we might hear the following Monday when court orders are typically announced. But contentious cases are often discussed several times before the court gets around to taking a vote on whether to grant them, so it could take a few weeks before we know.
The five cases ready for the justices to consider ask the court to decide these questions:
- Did Congress exceed its powers in requiring that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, and, if it did, must the entire health care law fall or can parts of it survive?
- Can a challenge to the insurance requirement be brought now, before the law goes into effect in 2014?
- Do new Medicaid requirements in the law impose excessive burdens on the states?
Leave a Comment:
go for it SCOTUS....
It should be interesting to see what they decide.
Between all the controversy on obamacare and the regs yet to be written, americans want to here the courts opinion.
If the SCOTUS strikes down the Health Care Reform law, the supposed "job killing abomination" if you believe the republican mantra, with all of its uncertainty - the GOP will still not hire until after November 2012.
It will be interesting though. My thought is that the court (namely Kennedy) will not want to be listed as the SCOTUS that declared it unconstitutional. No one wants to be remembered by history that way.
Not a direct analogy but it would be like if the SCOTUS tried the case to judge whether SS was unconstitutional or not, even Alito and Scalia would try to reverse it.
Thanks for the update Pete.
Ah. A "ripeness" challenge. I hope the Court takes that one.
Can't wait to hear the jokes that flow from that.
HAHAHAHAHA. Nancy and the Leftist democrats should have studied up on the "enumerated powers" in the Constitution before passing legislation falling outside those powers.
@ Madison From NY --
Actually, the concept of the individual mandate, itself, originated with the conservative Heritage Foundation.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
Insurance companies wanted the mandate, without which they said the bill wouldn't work. President Obama, after having initially opposed it -- read about that in the linked article -- ultimately agreed to it in order to win insurance company buy-in. It was the Senate bill, containing the mandate, that ultimately passed in both houses.
So I guess it's not really fair to blame it ALL on Speaker Pelosi, now is it?
Or perhaps some basic economics.
Or did they design Class to fail?
I still have not heard how thins beast is deficit neutral now that Class is history.
Anyone?
Amy?
They really did not care so long as they could pass a Government take over of 1/6th of the economy. The lefitst democrats KNEW that Obamacare would cost $$$ TRILLIONS and was unsustainable but were willing to cook the books and LIE to hard working citizens about BOGUS cost savings to TAKE OVER one sixth of the economy. THE TRUTH finally is coming out about Class and all the other FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS the Liar-in-Chief endorsed as part of the progressive democrat confidence game during the window they controlled 100% of the Government. They ALL NEED TO BE IMPEACHED.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
America will elect the next candidate who commits unconditionally to defund and entirely repeal Obamacare.
Big heaping pile of smelly mess.
No more Class. Never was an integration clause.
Well, sure, but OWS seems to be really working out nice.
Say, wasn't Van Jones down in Oakland just the other day?
The key issue is the 'Individual Mandate', and if they strike that down, what happens to the rest of the law?
Some parts may be upheld, such as a ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions, which I hope will be upheld.
The 'smart' thing would be to do what all major developed countries do - Have the government dictate a minimum standardized standard of care, and then allow insurance companies to compete across State lines based on that minimum standard of care. Most of the best health care systems in the World follow this path, and it works well for them and maintains lower costs through competition.
If some people want to 'add-on' additional coverage at extra cost to the individual, they can do so.
The government has proven time and again how inefficient it is at running programs, so the 'Single Payer' (government run) option would be a disaster, since cost controls and common sense are very low on the government's list of priorities.
You must not have read the law because that is precisely what the new health care bill is - basic, enhanced and premium levels. Once again, are you being led by baggers or do you think for yourself and read the law.
The law was about the denominator in order to allow private insurance companies to dictate negotiated pricing with medical providers (the numerator) because those that don't cary insurance ALSO include the incredibly wealthy who "self-insure" but pay AND the poor, indigant misuse of hospital services that don't pay. Those not paying and abusing the system ARE being paid by your insurance companies in higher prices. Tort reform only reduces the numerator by 5% whereas adding 100 to 500 on the denominator.... well you do the math.
Actually pretty shrewd when you really consider the massive effects. The bad thing is the minimal costs but that, I suspect, would change in time.
JayCFO-3768452 "You must not have read the law because that is precisely what the new health care bill is - basic, enhanced and premium levels."
You're very naive if you actually believe that. I know that this was the claimed intent, but the way the law was written is nowhere close to that. It had so many 'loopholes' to favor unions that it was nothing but a 'mishmash', and it did not allow competition across State lines - nor did it have a common 'standard of care'.
I'm in favor of 'universal health care' (standards set by the government but run by insurance companies to control costs), paid for by a combination of payroll taxes and a national sales tax.
Exellent post Roy. CFO, if you read it as you claim, you lack comprehension in what you read. I call BS.
Madison.
Actually, the jokes on you. You and the cable news pundits you parrot, should have studied up on the precedent that seems to support the mandate.
I will go slow for you.
The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.
Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)
And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.
The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).
So let's go slowly . . . . .
Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?
Let's see.
Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...
What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.
What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.
What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To provide access to health care for nearly all Americans and deal with some of the cost drivers, such as people using the system who pay nothing (hospitals).
Filling in the blanks.........
Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to provide access to health care to nearly all Americans, and address some of the cost drivers?
YES or NO?
I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)
===============================================
Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:
'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'
Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to provide health care to nearly all Americans (the legitimate end)?
YES or NO?
I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)
===============================================
And here is something else to think about. Two sitting conservative justices would have to contridict two of their previous and fairly recent opinions to find the mandate unconstitutional.
Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):
As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.
Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):
We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html
Roy.
I agree.
I don't, however, see how that could have made it into law. The right would have opposed that even more furvently then they opposed the individual mandate.
A mandate created by the very same conservative think tank that now leads the charge against it.
A mandate supported by the GOP, until Obama wanted to use it...
It's upto SCOTUS to see if it stands up to the Constitution...period. This is not up to SCOTUS to decide if it is what people want or don't want, it's not an opinion. The Constittution is a CLEAR pathway it's NOT to be "Interpreted" it is already clear. If it's not what people want that's when we amend it. SCOTUS does not make law.
Roy Wilson,
Again, you need to read the actual law. The law "regulates" health insurance policies BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES into 3 "levels" of insurance with a fourth to be an exchange, similar to each of the state's workers' compensation risk pools which insurance companies are required to be in if they wish to underwrite within the state.
As for "standard of care", that was to be determined by the director of the department of health and welfare, which tells me you did NOT read the law.
The law also has a few other items
1. the individual mandate, which was lobbied for by the insurance companies in exchange for the "no lifetime limits" and "no pre-existing" conditions
2. no lifetime limits and no pre-existing conditions
3. "cadillac tax" on high benefit plans with no "participation" by the participant... this was for the "union" type plans... effect of which will be that employers (and employees) will gravitate towards the other three types of plans
4. tax credit supports for small and medium size employers with penalties for employers should any employer (small to large) NOT provide health insurance plans for their employees.
The effect of this plan pushes the employers to assist and provide health insurance for their employees. Albeit potentially very costly for some employers, such as McDonald's franchisees with 10-20 stores under one corporation, Domino's, or even Wal-Mart to actually have to start providing their employees health insurance. However, most of these organizations have very, very high cash flow and net profits when they are that large. In the millions.... does that have a familiar ring to it?
Having been a CFO of a 21 McDonald's franchisee, I know the costs of health care, having negotiated many contracts. We were actually self-insured to $50k per employee with an aggregate of $100k. What most people don't know is the average age @ McDonald's is like 21-23, well under the 26 to be able to be on parents. Regardless, the health risks in that industry are lower because of the age. Workers' compensation will go down because if the employee didn't have health insurance they would fake an injury and try to get workers' comp.
So... again, you need to read the entire law.
It is NOT perfect and needs more "tweaking" of participation in dollars from the participant among other things. Or a larger "penalty" by the government for NOT purchasing a policy.
One additional note - Think about the average cost of health care being paid by health insurance companies, codling their "customer" for fear of losing them (the denominator) so they are less "intrusive" in "managing" medical providers costs (the numerator). If you no longer can manage out the bad apples of the denominator you work on the numerator for cost control.
Example, if I'm an insurer and you're the participant and you went to a doctor in your town that charged $3,500 for the same procedure the clinic accross town charged $1,500, I'm going to tell your doctor they get $1,500 not the $3,500. You can rant and scream at me all day, and you'll leave, but all the other insurance companies will be doing the same thing. Because now it's a level playing field. AND its being done by private enterprise.
That is why the individual mandate is so critical.
Unfortunately, the population is not ready for universal health care, primarily because of the baggers. That model forces any society into a two-tiered system, those that get it as part of their payroll taxes and those that purchase their own additional private insurance so they can see the doctor of their own choosing.
The current health care law is the first major federal regulation on the health insurance industry. That was a daunting task because of the disparate policies from state to state.
So... the law is a baseline with very, very important fundamentals that can't be messed with or the pillars fail, individual mandate is one of them.
REAL Americans don't NEED no stinkin' health-care.
(now, where's my tea bags? I got a new sun bonnet to decorate)
Screw the sun bonnet - genuine tea baggers cut out the middle-man and staple them directly to their foreheads! ;o)
Reminds me of the 'real' tea baggers that staple their 'nads together. One of 'em explained it this way: "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em".
Damn it Buzz - another monitor ruined! LMAO!
We need healthcare, we just "don't NEED no stinkin" big government bureaucrats telling us what we must buy, who's abortions and birth control we have to pay for, our coverage is too good so we have to pay a penalty ...... we don't NEED no stinkin' higher costs of healthcare due to obamacare, we don't need rationing and government telling us what test, procedures, drugs, etc we can have, we don't need the effect it has on unemployment and the loss of jobs .... but, most of all, we don't need anymore of Obama's stinkin' lies and deceit.
Must be tough to come up with quips with a tea bag sized brain, huh?
The funny thing is- I can see one or two of them actually doing this. If for no other reason than to end their frustration.
(I mean....j'ob-killing' frustration)
Uh Oh- I think we got one now.....
Hey, Bob- You may have me convinced. Maybe what we need is SINGLE-PAYER healthcare.
(wanna borrow my stapler, little guy?)
Yeah bob - Drive By is a tad passive aggressive.
And no Drive By we do need, and have health care.
Now get off you ass and get you own, you moocher.
"Real Americans" don't need to pay for your health care, Big Guy.
And I don't want to pay for health insurance executives' exhorbitant salaries -- if you have some idea that private health insurance is not a bureaucracy, you are surely delusional -- or for the multiple babies you father, or for your vasectomy, or for your hernias, either. But some of my premium probably already goes for that.
Is there a point here?
You're living proof. Have a nice day.
So you're going to let the insurance companies do that instead? Unregulated? And THAT'S going to be better?
And Benefits Enrollment season is upon us.
My insurance plan has been deemed "Cadillac." So my company dropped it and I get to enroll in a less attractive plan next month. So much for "if you like your insurance, you can keep it."
That's strange - I negotiated our health care renewal with BCBS this spring and not only did we keep our 'Cadillac plan', instead of the 29% increase we were hit with last year & the 23% it went up in 2009, it only went up 15%.
Perhaps it's time your company hires a competent HR Director.
Thanks for the advice, Feisty. I'll pass it along.
15% increase? I thought The Healthcare law was going to bend the cost curve down on premiums.
Always happy to help hon....
Just WHAT part of the previous 50% increases do YOU not understand?
You're using that Government Math.
If you usually increase spending by 10%, and then only increase spending by 8%, you take credit (or heat) for a 2% "cut."
Bob
you might not need no stinkin health care but I am tired of my tax dollars and my insurance premium going up to pay for you people who are too lazy or too irresponsible to take care of your own business and get you some insurance. Furthermore currently your private insurance pays for abortions and birth control whichwhich you have no say about. Currently there is no regulation that forces your insurance company to actually spend your premiums on claims as you can see with the AIG debacle. The new law "Obamcare" requires insurance companies to pay 85% of their collected premiums towards claims instead of company bonus for CEO's and if they fail to meet this medical loss ratio , guess what they have to do ......... drum roll please ....... give you a refund of your premiums ....... it also requires them to grant coverage to people who otherwise would not be covered and guess who pays for thier healthcare, we do the taxpayers, so hmmmm there are just two points of the bill that makes a lot of sense to me.
So buck up put on your big girl panties and deal with it buy your OWN insurance and pay the premiums because I am sick and tired of paying for all you lazy bums to get healthcare
I think we all know what the right-wing justices will say - the legislative branch has no constituition power when the majority is Democratic. Reverse that when the Republicans are in power.
True. They're only activist judges when decisions aren't what conservatives like.
And they're only activist judges when decisions aren't what the liberals like.
Will Thomas recuse himself?
Sorry, I must be dreaming that this SCOTUS would exercise integrity!
But why should the court even bother.......the TeaPeople believe in personal responsibility..don't need no SC to tell us what's right/wrong/indifferent........
I was wondering the same thing about Thomas, chilled.
With as much controversy about Thomas, his wife and the money he didn't bother to declare as required, it will be interesting to see if Chief Justice Roberts wants that controversy added to the public outrage after Citizens United. If he does not ask Thomas to recuse himself, watch for calls of impeachment to increase. Not sure Roberts has the backbone for it.
Will Thomas recuse himself? No, that would require integrity, a quality that he lacks.
Agree totally Jody, newday.
I don't know what the mechanics are but something needs to be done about Thomas!
Recusal or impeachment?.......I favor impeachment!
Ah, my silly little libbie friends.
Just Thomas, but not Kagen, right gang?
And Jody - Warren "forgot" to declare $100k. Shall we DQ her from her senate race, or does your rule only apply to conservatives? Timmy Geitner forget to "declasre a bunch of money, yet he still in Obama's cabinet.
Integrity, eh? huh.
And last but certainly not least - hats of to chilled - he admits he does not understand the process, yet call out for impeachment.
Is it any wonder why you libbies are always so disappointed, and why everything is always "unexpected?"
Keep it rocking guys, you really are funny.
Thomas, Scalia, Kagen, Roberts, and Kennedy are examples of extremely poor choices by presidents for the Supreme Court. Their obvious biases make any decisions they make one big joke. The Court no longer acts as a check on the power of the Congress and the Executive Branches, but rather AGAINST the people. Impeach them all!
"And Jody - Warren "forgot" to declare $100k. Shall we DQ her from her senate race, or does your rule only apply to conservatives? Timmy Geitner forget to "declasre a bunch of money, yet he still in Obama's cabinet."
Irrelevant.
Again.
OK Drive, that was a neat conclusion.
Now how about you explain to us why it is irrelevant?
Or is this just it's cool when a member of team blue "forgets?"
You know when Rangel - who was in charge of the tax code can't seem to remember all of his income, that might be relevant to his position.
Or when Warren fails to disclose all of her income, it might be relevant to the nature and purpose of the discloser process.
Little Timmy Geinter is charged with overseeing the tax process and yet he could not accurately report his own income. Relevant to his job? Why I tend to think so.
Now here we got an argument by your team that what Thomas' wife does is relevant to Thomas' position.
So what do you think Drive By- we appear to be talking about competence, disclosure and bias. Do these issues tend to relate, prove, or disprove the issues at hand?
But I am so please that you have been chose to be the arbitrator of what is, and what is not relevant.
You seem so well, um, suited for that purpose.
Funny how libs are loading up their depends about Thomas's wife when they have Kagan's role as OSG hanginging out there.
Think a little pillow talk trumps stuff like a Jan. 8, 2010, email featuring the subject line "Re: Health Care Defense" from former Deputy Solicitor General/now-acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal to Associate Attorney General Brian Hauck: "Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG (Office of Solicitor General) to be involved in this set of issues ... we will bring in Elena as needed."
In another email that same day, Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group "to defend against inevitable challenges" to ObamaCare. Ketel replies, "Absolutely right on. Let's crush them. I'll speak with Elena and designate someone."
Do you guys honestly think Obama girl Kagan's role in crafting the legislation and then ruling on it is gonna happen?
Why is Holder fighting all the FOI requests?
No biggie, huh?
[Second and third paragraph from IBD editors]
Not really funny, just the libbies' cognitive failure/dis-function.
Like how they think Obama is all anti-Wall Street.
But then again it was just a few weeks ago that NOJO had to school some of them [I think it was Amy, but I could be wrong].
See they did even realize that 3 of his cabinet came right from Wall Street.
So their ignorance forms their beliefs, which are of course are based upon false/incomplete/or incorrect information.
Like Obama is not a Wall Street whore, or that Thomas should recuse herself but Kagen is all good.
But good god are they amusing.
And last but certainly not least - hats of to chilled - She admits She does not understand the process, yet call out for impeachment.
I'm not omniscient/all knowing about the process....but then I suggest neither are you.
"The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as early as two weeks from now whether to take up the titanic legal battle over President Obama's health care law."
I would only add that it is not President Obama's Health Care law. It is the Law of this Land. The Patriot Act is not referred to as President Bush's intelligence law. Social Security is not referred to as President Roosevelt's savings plan. Welfare Reform is not referred to as President Clinton's welfare law etc.
This law does not belong to the President. It belongs to the Country. When and if we start acting like a Country will hopefully be the day we start on the road to becoming ONE Nation again.
That does not mean a blind acceptance of anything that is the law, but at least referr to it as the Law. Not something that is 'owned' by 1 person or entity. It was that when it was proposed. It belongs to the Country now.
Wow this could be an oddity that in the span of 12 years the SCOTUS will have decided two presidential elections. If the Dems were smart, they'd also start filing federal challenges to a bunch of the states new voter registration laws.
Mr. Williams,
ANY article on SCOTUS taking up the Health Care Reform arguement MUST discuss whether or not Justice Thomas will have to recuse himself due to a (certainly clear) conflict of interest. Any article with this not discussed is not clearly reporting the issues pertaining to SCOTUS and HCR.
Good point Midwest....but the Thomas thing has been hinted at for quite some time, but nothing ever seems to take root!
It's appears that he (and other members of the court) is exempt from integrity if not downright illegal stuff!
Justice Roberts? DOJ? Congress? Somebody needs to do something!
Since Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has undermined its own integrity. Consequently the American people are beginning to think that their decisions may not 'count' and can be ignored, a very dangerous outcome.
That said, we already know the outcome of the decision: 5-4 to strike down the law. Anthony Kennedy has been the biggest disappointment of late. He used to be moderate but has now entrenched himself with the conservatives.
Two weeks? The Supreme Court only needs TWO MINUTES to hold this Federal encroachment on the personal liberties of hard working citizens UNCONSTIUTIONAL.
...sayeth the great Constitutional "expert"...and, of course, you don't need to hear arguments to come to that conclusion, right?
To all the nut jobs out there who want this or that justice of the SCOTUS to recuse themselves from hearing the Health Care case if it goes to the court; justify for me why & what are you gooing to do if they don't. Who's going to impeach them? Congress doubt it, since the SCOTUS gets to decide it's own rules, not Congress, the SCOTUS gets to decide what requires a recusal, not Congress.
So you all just need to sit down & shut up. The SCOTUS will shot this law down for the simple fact that Congress exceed it's authority in creating this law!
" So you all just need to sit down & shut up. "
EEEK!
YOW!!
They didn't exceed anything just like they didnt with SS Medicare and Medicaid all of which came and was passed in Congress and Approved by the masses.
Defund Obamacare. It already caused health care premiums on the 80% of hard working citizens already satisfied with their healthcare plans to SKYROCKET over 33%. Shutting down futre funding and firing the regulation writing and business killing bureaucrats will stop healthcare rates from SKYROCKETING even more.
Here I thought the United States Supreme Court was supposed to be an impartial arm of justice, dispensing rulings based solely on the law and our Constitution. Did not think it was a place for personal political vendettas or ideology, nothing more than a more select version of the Tea Party Congress. But I suppose Bush v Gore threw out the idea that the Court is an apolitical body... If America is really a democracy, Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from the health care judgment. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
9 million adults lost health insurance in 2011 because of job losses. Every reduction in the number of people paying into the risk pool translates to a premium increase for everyone else. To claim premium increases are to blame on the health care law, independant of other factors is absurd.
So, Madison, what do you think? "Defund Obamacare" and your premiums will go down? Wait until all the baby boomers croak. The risk pool will be even smaller. Don't bet on premiums ever going down, but if Obmacare is gone, who will you blame?
Many people don't know the "individual mandate" portion of the Healthcare bill was proposed by a republicon "Chuck Grassley". No wonder it's no good. Should we all be surprised.
It would not surprise me to see the USSC declare the health care law declared unconstitutional!! At least 2 justices, Scalia and Thomas, have been receiving money from conservatives causes and organizations. They've been deciding cases in favor of those causes and organizations! If it isnt a "quid pro quo", it certainly looks like one. My own opinions is that Scalia and Thomas are bought and paid for, perhaps Alito too from the rumblings Ive been hearing and reading about.
In all my 45 years of following politics, I have never seen such blatant political pandering by members of the USSC. To be frank, I no longer trust them to render justice, but rather see them as advancing political causes of the right under the cover of misstated law!
This makes it more urgent that both Obama and the DEMs win substantially in 2012. Im rather shocked that no news media is investigating this. It's really very easy to find and the media has FAR MORE resources than I do! GOD SAVE THIS COUNTRY!
It's nice to see you my friend! ;o)
Keep up the fight!
We have something MUCH more powerful then any of the BS... it's called the TRUTH!
Dear another,
Ya know, Ive looked everywhere, and I can find anything that shows Obama creating this debt crisis. Ditto for crashing the economy! Ditto, ditto for blocking the recovery! So, the country needs protection cuz he didnt DO any of this! But he IS being blcoked from fixing it!And day by daythe country IS noticing!
Hi Feisty!! :)
I guess I really ticked him off!! <giggle>
I have Obamacare. My twins and I lost our employer provided insurance when my husband died. COBRA did not apply because it was a small group. We were able to cobble together insurance with individual coverage and the high risk pool( because of a minor problem) but it was quickly becoming unaffordable. When the ACA went into effect last October we were able to choose from alot more plans and they had to cover the children. We have high deductible insurance and can open an HSA. My tea party senator advocates HSA's and high deductibles as a way to control costs. My insurance is with a private company. I don't like the idea of single payer. I can change jobs and not lose my insurance. Half of the children in my state are on Medicaid, Mine aren't. I'm tired of the ACA being portrayed as a way to put more people on government insurance when I see it as a way to stay off.
How can the Supreme court decide On Obama care? When the Supreme court are all Govt. employees and they're all on Govt. Health care.
The Supreme Court of Injustice that is totally whacked like Tea bagging history of the way they have ruled in the past striking down McCain/Feingold campaign law to show transparency in Elections by a 5 to 4 margin along there party lines the justices are most surely at odds over the RECLUSING themselves from cases that they are illegally ruling on.
The Truth is Health Care carriers have constantly said the reason High premiums exist is the uninsured. Further research has pointed directly at the reason Premiums that were exploding at rates so fast before this law of Health Care passed have now consistently been held more in check then in previous years without proving the Law is starting to rein in cost. Research also has proved that the lobbyist are trying to overturn anything related to HealthCare law in order to return to the outrages profits and increases in premiums they had been used to before the law existed.
LyingRepublicans,
It will be interesting to see your spin on this should the SCOTUS uphold the law.
You obviously didn't read the bill or any of the reports, including Government accounting agencies, that have stated many parts of this bill are not sustainable, will not work, and cannot be implemented.
Now I know you will feel I'm a Tea Partier or right winger, but, I'm in favor of health care reform. I am not in favor of this bill, because it was poorly written, will not work, and will worsen health care in the US, NOT make it better.
I hope the SCOTUS declares the bill unconstitutional so we can start over again. Take the good from the bill, remove the bad, and add some common sense and fiscal responsibility into the new plan, and BAM, there you go, everyones happy.
PS: You are dead wrong about costs being held more in check. They are increasing at a faster pace as a result of the bill. Insurance companies and medical providers are scrambling to make as much as they can now before the bill kicks in, as then the system "could" collapse. My insurance premiums have gone up more in the past year and a half, than the previous 4 years combined. Thanks Obama! Good plan to lower health care costs...
Repealing Heath Care reform act and replacing it with the Cheers of Tea Bagging Republican DEATH CARE is not a good decision.
Interesting to see the flow of money going to Republicans who are trying to repeal this coming from lobyist in the Health Industry who are pushing to Raise Premiums on all Health Care but are being held in Check by the law itself.
Finally, a path towards final legal opinion on this Obamacare Law that was passed only with a lot of back doer behind the light of day deals and every day we hear more and more about how it can not be executed (i.e., CLASS) and how all the supposedly savings are not really there after all! Let's get this Court decision out the way so we can go back and design a law that takes the best from the current legislation and removes all the crap, so Democrats can stop demogouging everything about it! Time to man up Supreme Court! The corrupt Pelosi Era of legislation may finally be over with a strikedown of this law, but we will see!
I do find it interesting the hate and derogatory attacks coming from the "compassionate" left.
Man on man, are they hate mongers. If you don't blindly agree with their philosophy they deem you their enemy. Anyone with a brain can see that the divisive effect in America today is largely due to the lefts arrogance and hate.
Let me clue the Regressives in. I'll type slowly, I know it's hard for you to think on your own:
Most people from what I've seen and heard are NOT AGAINST HEALTH CARE REFORM. OK, read that again before I move on. Get it?
Now here's the part you hate, and cannot stomach: These people who are against the Obama Health Care Reform are so because IT WAS POORLY WRITTEN, WILL NOT WORK, AND WILL COST MORE THAN WE HAVE.
OK, now there is a difference of opinion in this, but I think that hopefully you hate mongers will understand that you aren't right just because you believe so. I hope you can understand that opposing a poorly written and concieved bill doesn't make you an obstructionist or anti-Obama. All it says is that THIS BILL, NOT THE CONCEPT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM, is not the right plan.
I hope this helps take the hate out of your mind. I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a Democrat. But the way the left behaves makes it so I cannot support their side in any way.
I voted for Obama, and frankly, I'm disappointed with the results. No, I will not vote for him again. I will vote Republican if they choose Romney, or 3rd party candidate as a protest vote if they pick someone who I feel will not be a viable replacement for Obama. But Obama has to be a one term President.
PS: Not an excuse for the Right wingers hate mongering, but the left posters here spewing hate far out number the others.
The Republican-leaning SCOTUS will knock it down to hurt Obama's chances for reelection and further increase the discontent of younger Americans..The revolution is gaining support !
Bob Jones-3591206
I, initially, was going to ignore your comments given the lack of substance within your comments. But then I think I really should ask you. Have you read the entire law? Yes or no?
If it is no, then comprehension is not an issue for you because you are regurgitating someone else's thoughts, meaning you fall into that typical bagger mentality.. your choice, but really, what does that say about your mental thought process? Is it original?
If you did read the law, which I doubt because I've found so many baggers to be great at talkin but not good at listening. Because listening is learning and learning means understanding.
Read the law and actually put pencil to paper. It'll take time but you'll be better for it, even if you still disagree about the results.
Law is about behavior compliance and motivation. If we didn't have changes in laws we still would have jim crowe laws on the books or whatever your particular "large" issue might be.