Posted by: Boldwin
- [35615181] Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 16:30
The lower court rulings are getting more and more lopsided ruling the insurance mandate unconstitutional.
This one in PD's neighborhood just came down 9/13/11 with a very very rigorous look at the judge's handling of each argument Obama's lawyers made.
[The other Obamacare threads were all 800+ posts and their titles aren't appropriate to the point we are at in the implimentation/overhaul/repeal/overturn wherever it is we are]
Perhaps the strongest argument FOR the mandate, is that without insurance, taxpayers (the govt) winds up paying the bill. W/O the mandate and disallowing incurance companies to cancel/decline coverage...consumers will wait UNTIL they are enroute to the hospital, to buy insurance. (Adverse selection to the MAX). The mandate, is the only thing that makes insurance viable as a business, IF you disallow sometimes severely limited coverage(s).
So...(1) Govt pays w/o insurance and NOBODY argues that the govt doesnt have the authority to be more responsible IN its spending....(2) the insurance industry will absoluely cease to exist IF you mandate coverage but not require purchase...(3) w/o insurance we are even worse off than we are now...(4) health and welfare OF the society, is certainly within the auspicies of the government OF that society. (or would argue that we should do away with the likes of the FDA?)
2
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 17:33
It's all going to SCOTUS. Really, none of this matters before then--just some sort of partisan scorekeeping.
3
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 18:23
PD
The precise legal reasoning in my original link outlines a reasonable outline of what the SCOTUS will mull over.
You'd be better informed to actually understand the legal principles and spend less time yearning for socialist medicine.
The healthy cure to unconstitutional laws is to repeal them or just let the SCOTUS overturn the law and start over.
"It just has to be constitutional because it doesn't work without the unconstitutional parts"...is not a winning legal argument usually.
Maybe the court is packed with just enuff liberals and neocons to ignore stare decisis and the constitution so as to keep your socialist medicine in place.
4
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 18:26
w/o insurance we are even worse off than we are now
Then we had better stomp out Obamacare before it kills off insurance.
5
sarge33rd
ID: 7821815 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 18:49
it is the rights efforts to defeat all things Obama, which we need to stomp out.
6
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 19:24
You'd be better informed to actually understand the legal principles and spend less time yearning for socialist medicine
If you'd bothered to check out the other thread, in which I was about the only one linking to the various court decisions, pro and con, as they came down, you'd understand just how pathetically boastful that sentence is. If you want to argue against the many points I made in that thread about where SCOTUS will come down you are welcome to do so. But you would be required to read an opinion you are biased against reading, let alone understanding. I'm not holding my breath.
Then we had better stomp out Obamacare before it kills off insurance
Requiring people to purchase privately-sold insurance is at the heart of the conservative argument. And is definitionally the opposite of socialism.
7
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 19:34
As the half-loaf that it is, Obamacare will slowly kill off private insurance. They couldn't get single-payer socialist medicine that they were explicitly calling for all in one step. Instead they settled for establishing the socialist framework of agencies and panels, etc, while they poison private insurance out of competition with the public sector.
8
sarge33rd
ID: 7821815 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 19:38
B? Perhaps you deliberately are ignoring 1/2 of what I said. Requiring companies to provide coverage AND not requiring consumer participation, will kill off insurance companies. I'd LIKE to think you honest enough to not deliberately misrepresent what I said. For doing so, deliberately and knowingly, would NOT speak well of your general character, nor would it be in keeping with your professed Christian ethics.
9
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 19:43
Private insurance cannot survive Obamacare no matter what, with or without mandates. They aren't meant to. Their only hope is a repeal or overturning of Obamacare.
10
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 20:01
Private health insurance in the U.S. will be dead in three years, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn said Tuesday.
“That is by design. You’re going to make insurance unaffordable for everyone — which is what they want. Because if there’s no private insurance left, what’s left? Government-centered, government-run, single-payer health care.”
Coburn apparently based his prediction on reported hikes in private insurance premiums, increases he attributed to the new law.
12
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 20:06
We’re still finding out what’s in that bill, more than a year after the Democrats passed it.
President Barack Obama’s health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That’s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
“I don’t generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn’t make sense,” Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
Well, it makes sense if you went into crafting the bill with an agenda to kill off private insurance to force a national move to single payer, government-run health care.
13
sarge33rd
ID: 7821815 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 20:19
The right, ahs said MANY things which simply are not true. Like "the stimulus didnt work"; a fdalsehood and we all know it. (including you B), or "Obamacare will add to the debt"...which the CBO says is patently false and you know that as well. So I'll not pay the least bit of attention to a Rep mouthpiece speaking of ill results from healthcare reform. Nor should you, or WOULD you, if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty,
14
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 20:20
Even liberal apparatchiks are forced to agree:
When Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services, which manages health programs within the state, wanted to get a better sense of how last year’s health care overhaul would affect insurance coverage within the state, they turned to Jonathan Gruber, a health policy expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who served as a consultant on both Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care overhaul and (somewhat controversially) President Obama’s nationwide successor program.
He tried his best, but Gruber was unable to spin this sow’s ear into a silk purse.
Gruber projects that the average individual market health insurance premium will cost about 30 percent more than if ObamaCare had never passed. For most individual market enrollees, the average premium increase will be even higher: 87 percent of the individual market is projected to see a premium price increase of 41 percent.
Thus it deliberately pushes private insurance prices beyond reach.
15
sarge33rd
ID: 7821815 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 20:30
In the very first paragraph, we have this gem:
But to the surprise only of liberals, the percentage of Americans without health insurance has gone up since ObamaCare was imposed:
Of course, the reforms are NOT YET IN AFFECT. So the increases in cost we have seen so far, are independent OF the reform. Since it opens with this obviously misleading premise, I see no need to read the remainder of the crap it must contain.
16
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:10
Like "the stimulus didnt work"; a fdalsehood and we all know it. (including you B) - S
Even if there was a grain of truth in Keynesian theory, the stimulus had no chance of helping when structured as an Obama re-election slush fund and when the vast majority was not even spent until long into the depression.
"Obamacare will add to the debt"...which the CBO says is patently false and you know that as well.
Democrats have developed a genius for exploiting the 'garbage in/garbage out' trick with the CBO and they are very strong-arm in insisting the CBO base their projections on absurd assumptions. Like so many government pronouncements every readjustment in the numbers has revealed and will continue to reveal deeper and deeper costs in it.
17
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:10
The reason that the prices will go up is something I touched on in the other thread. I know, I know--it's gotta be much more fun to look for alarmist stuff elsewhere to throw up on your blog here, but I'll repeat it:
One of the reasons health care insurance premiums are going up is that you will be getting more with your money, because the law requires certain things that insurance companies now have to cover that they previously did not have to.
Of course, before the law insurers were raising premiums while cutting benefits.
If I had a choice, I'd much rather have the former than the latter.
18
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:12
Sarge
Employers are dropping their coverage left and right because of Obamacare and Obama's and Pelosi's waivered cronies are leading the pack in kicking their employees' insurance to the curb.
19
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:14
Source?
20
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:16
One of the reasons health care insurance premiums are going up is that you will be getting more with your money - PD
And if they could have afforded a Cadillac plan they would have bought one in the first place.
21
sarge33rd
ID: 7821815 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:20
BS...I was in the ins industry. A more cutthroat environment would be difficult to imagine. Businesses, like to tell THEIR customers "You get what you pay for", but damned if that think that should apply to them.
American business, wouldnt give the worker a gddmn thing, the law didnt require.
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:39
the 'garbage in/garbage out' trick
A technique you have mastered. Those poor private insurers, like United Healthcare, whose stock price has doubled since the healthcare reform passed congress.
Gee, I wonder if their lobbyists have ever brightened Coburn's office.
24
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 22:25
Hmmm. Record profits for an industry after sweeping changes in the law which they supported. Apparently insurance companies aren't as good with numbers as we thought. Probably not as good as those trying to shore up baseless fearmongering about private insurance companies going out of business soon.
Hmmm--who stands to gain from such baseless rumors?
#22 A: That isn't actually a source for your claim. A consultants report saying that a number of companies said that they will drop coverage between now and 2014 isn't actually the same as "Employers are dropping their coverage left and right because of Obamacare."
Meanwhile, you want to have it both ways by claiming there is a problem both with the law and with the waivers.
You are nothing if not desperate for bad news.
Say--how about some analysis of someofthe judicialrulings which don't back up your own bias of the law?
25
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 22:28
The CBO is simply running in reverse an enormous exercise in GIGO — so think of this as GOGI budgeting. Recall that the rules forced CBO to incorporate a wide range of budget gimmicks in their original estimate of the health care law:
● Leaving out the roughly $115 billion in discretionary spending needed to implement the bill
● Counting the $70 billion in premiums for long-term care insurance (CLASS Act), but ignoring the unsustainable CLASS Act spending that starts after the first 10 years,
● Using over $50 billion in higher Social Security taxes to offset health spending,
● Leaving out entirely the cost of paying Medicare doctors,
● Pretending that over $450 billion in payment cuts to Medicare providers will be possible without changing in any real way the operation of Medicare,
● And planning to collect a tax on cadillac health insurance that the unions have already gutted and will not tolerate.
In short, there was never any reason to believe that the law reduced the deficit by roughly $140 billion over ten years. Starting two new open-ended entitlements without fixing the existing budgetary cancers just doesn’t work that way.
- Douglas Holtz-Eakin an American economist, former professor, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and former chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, Senior Staff Economist on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Faculty Research Fellow and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and the Paul A. Volcker Chair in International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, In 2009, he joined the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress as a fellow focusing on health care reform issues, appointed to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in 2009.
26
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 22:33
And let's not forget that the CBO numbers count ten years taxes which have already started while only counting six years of implimented Obamacare expenses.
You do enuff of that kind of phony number crunching and you could even make Solyndra look solvent.
27
sarge33rd
ID: 7821815 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 22:36
golly, if what you had to say, had ANY merit at all...I'd prolly appreciate the enlarged font and bolded image. Alas, since you have long since proven that your bias will preclude any sort of honesty form at all...I simply skip past what you have to say.
You may wish to consider saving wear and tear pon your keyboard and minimizing your biased input any further.
28
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 22:40
#26: The CBO projects out what Congress tells it to. Unlike many other sources, they are completely up front with their assumptions.
29
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 22:47
if what you had to say, had ANY merit at all. - Sarge#27
I'll put your resume up against the gravitas of my link's author any day.
The CBO projects out what Congress tells it to. Unlike many other sources, they are completely up front with their assumptions. - PD
And what we have seen is that the Dems gave the CBO a crock of steaming snot to add up.
30
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 23:33
Not exactly. The CBO has to use the law itself as the basis for any projects--even areas which are likely to be changed, repealed, or modified.
Unlike outside organizations which exist to put their own spin on things, the CBO will project given the assumptions in the law.
Constitutional Attorney Miguel Estrada claims the administration's strategy is to ensure the Supreme Court does not rule before the 2012 elections. ( 1:03:48 - 1:05:20)
32
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Sep 19, 2011, 05:41
PD
What do you know about the process that Douglas Holtz-Eakin former Director of the CBO doesn't that would lead you to believe that the cost/savings estimate you have touted for over a year isn't a steaming pile of garbage in/garbage out, as Douglas Holtz-Eakin calls it?
The success of that law (like our economic recovery) is going to put Romney in a tough position this fall.
34
Boldwin
ID: 121044275 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 23:11
The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have “expanded” the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you’re in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg…….too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg. ... A little later a man was brought in by ambulance, very sick, in pain, and near death. I did my usual evaluation and treatment, doing my best to ease pain and stabilize this man’s illness. He needed to be admitted. To my chagrin I found out that he had been treated for the SAME problem at a DIFFERENT HOSPITAL about 10 days prior. If I admitted this man, our hospital would be paid nothing. I admitted the man.
My friends I am caught in a terrible position. I could have given treatment to both of these people and sent them out. There is no doubt that both of them would have died. Oh, I could also be sued for malpractice, but nobody cares about that. ... “As more and more are added to the Obamacare rolls, there will be less and less access. People will get sicker and yes, people will die because of it. I had a sick and sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach today after both of these incidents. We have a good hospital. Our nurses, technicians, and support staff work very hard and they deserve to be paid for their efforts. I am not so worried about myself as I am near retirement, but I worry for all the younger folks in the healthcare business and I worry about our seniors who are in the long run going to be sacrificed as the government implements cost cutting shenanigans to cover up their broken promise made way back in 1964. ... “Slashed doctors’ pay, reduced services to patients of all ages and medical devices and testing equipment made by cheap overseas labor are cutting-block initiatives by the Obama government. Already targeted are our most defenseless — our mentally and physically disabled in institutionalized care who require the most medical assistance at a higher cost? Obamacare is not about care. It is not about using America’s advanced medical skills and technology, the finest in the world, to save lives of Americans regardless of race, age or class. It is about control. It is a power play that takes over one eighth of the U.S. economy. If not repealed, it is the unveiling of how a once great medical system became an ugly and deadly government-run ‘business’ in America.”
I stopped reading 34 after the first sentence, which is yet another Baldwin-posted lie.
The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid is a statement that is a flat out lie.
... Medicare will start fining hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications.
... For the first year, the penalty is capped at 1 percent of a hospital's Medicare payments. The overwhelming majority of penalized facilities will pay less. Also, for now, hospitals are only being measured on three medical conditions: heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia.
That whole broken leg nonsense in Baldwin's post is just that - nonsense. Same for the line of BS about hospitals not being paid.
Quit being dishonest - or at least start doing some research before you repost your lies.
Exactly. Also, don't forget that the more people are added to the rolls via Obamacare, the more will get sick and die.
Some on the Right don't seem to notice that in their haste to slam Obama they are coming to the defense of a wildly popular single payer health care program.
That you can only deal with them thru slander is telling how 'reality based' you are.
there's nothing slanderous what Medicare is actually doing - you re-posted a false statement, and instead of responding to what Medicare is actually going to be doing, you decided to attack the person instead of the issue.
The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid is simply not true.
So if you’re in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg…….too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your legis simply not true.
if you want to sit here and defend those positions, that's your business. but they're untrue statements that are easily refuted, and all you're doing is spreading lies instead of striving for the truth.
I printed an actual doctor's actual words and experiences. This is the understanding he has and that his hospital is telling him will happen if he keeps accepting these patients.
Stay in your dream world cocoon as long as you can manage to stay in denial. Those of us in the real world have to deal with your mess in the real world.
as an example, if a patient is readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of discharge for a diagnosis related to congestive heart failure or pneumonia, the hospital will not be reimbursed for the readmission.
I...HAVE...congestive heart failure.
Go.
Do not collect $200.
Do not even collect aspirin.
Do not even bother talking to the death panel.
Just go home and die.
Wanna see if Obamacare let's you circumvent the process and pay out of pocket? Don't bet on it. Not in the longhaul.
I printed an actual doctor's actual words and experiences. This is the understanding he has and that his hospital is telling him will happen if he keeps accepting these patients.
well, he's misinformed, plain and simple. it happens. nothing wrong with that - the mistake is made when it become easier to repeat a lie than even bother to look at the truth.
you choose to believe what you want to believe. you'd rather believe misinformation over reality, and you'd rather spread a lie than accept the fact you may have been mistaken.
as an example, if a patient is readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of discharge for a diagnosis related to congestive heart failure or pneumonia, the hospital will not be reimbursed for the readmission.
i realize you're choosing not to - or are possibly incapable of - reading other links, but it has already been established that this is untrue.
you can continue to spread lies, or you can accept that you're mistaken. one is right, the other is wrong. if you choose to continue to lie, that's on you.
honestly, it boggles my mind that you can be easily shown to be mistaken, and then instead of saying "wow, i was wrong here folks," you'd rather continue to spread lies, and do it more loudly. it's really odd behavior to me.
Actually, between the two of us, I've actually read way more of the actual bill than you have. I'm posting what lawyers and doctors say. Believe whatever you want. I know what a trainwreck this is gonna be. You'll be drinkin' that dogwater and callin' it champaign I am sure tho.
A few years ago, my small local hospital asked a Senate staffer if she could assist them in obtaining federal money for a new building. So she did, expediting the process by which that particular corner of northern New Hampshire was deemed to be “under-served” and thus eligible for the fed gravy. At the ribbon-cutting, she was an honored guest, and they were abundant in their praise...So she wound up going to the health center she’d endowed so lavishly with your tax dollars just a few years earlier.
They gave her the usual form to fill in, full of perceptive inquiries on her medical condition: Do you wear a seat belt? Do you own a gun? How many bisexual men are you now having sex with? These would be interesting questions if one were signing up for eHarmony.com and looking to date gun-owning bisexuals who don’t wear seat belts, but they were not immediately relevant to her medical needs. Nevertheless, she complied with the diktats of the Bureau of Compliance, and had her medical records transferred, and waited . . . and waited. That was August. She has now been informed that she has an appointment with a nurse-practitioner at the end of January. My friend pays $15,000 a year for health insurance. In northern New Hampshire, that and meeting the minimum-entry requirement of bisexual sex partners will get you an appointment with a nurse-practitioner in six months’ time.
the “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,” which slipped through all but unnoticed in Subtitle A Part One Section 3001 of the 2009 Obama stimulus bill. Under the Supreme National Coordinator, the United States government is setting up a national database for everybody’s medical records, so that if a Texan hiker falls off Mount Katahdin after walking the Appalachian Trail, Maine’s first responders will be able to know exactly how many bisexual gun-owners she’s slept with, and afford her the necessary care.
Under the EHR Incentive Program, if a physician makes “meaningful use” of electronic health records, he’s eligible for “bonuses” from the feds — a mere $44,000 from Medicare, for example, but up to $63,750 from Medicaid. If you have a practice at 27 Elm Street and you’re treating the elderly widow from 22 Elm Street, she’s unlikely to meet the federally mandated bi-guy requirement, but you can still qualify for bonuses by filing her smoking status with Washington. --- As I wrote a couple weeks ago, Obamacare governmentalizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy — or the equivalent of the entire French economy. No one has ever attempted that before, not even the French. In parts of rural America it will quickly achieve a Platonic perfection: There will be untold legions of regulators, administrators, and IRS collection agents, but not a doctor or nurse in sight. - Mark Steyn, read the whole thing
And that's the service for the senate staffer who shook the money tree for that facility. An equal share of misery for eeeeverybody! Yeah.
a federal appeals court yesterday reinstated two of the top legal challenges to the mandate, which requires religious employers to pay for drugs that may cause abortions.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College a major victory in their challenges to the HHS mandate. Previously, two lower courts had dismissed their lawsuits as premature because the Obama administration is expected to revise the mandate next year. However, the appellate court reinstated those cases.
The federal appeals court also ordered the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects their religious freedom. The Obama administration was ordered to rewrite the mandate by March 2013.