US Supreme Court to begin hearing arguments on national healthcare...

[OneTampa]

Crowds gathering:







Links:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10866512-high-court-to-begin-hearing-arguments-in-landmark-health-care-case

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/what-you-need-know-about-weeks-epic-supreme-court-hearings/50309/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

[mecch]

Crossing my fingers that this goes well, the average Joe especially really needs a break and a safety net!  NYTimes published statistics about the recession recovery and how all the new wealth is going to the 1% and a chunk of that to the .1%.

[Buckmark]

I'm sure Dick Cheney's heart transplant was paid for at least in part by Medicare and/or his *government* health insurance as retired federal employee. 

Conservatards seem to have no problem with others paying for their healthcare, as long as it is only for them, and not for everyone.

[J.R.E.]

http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9TS1M4O0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018


Obama's insurance requirement not the only mandate
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR Associated Press The Associated Press
Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:32 AM EDT

   
WASHINGTON (AP) — The individual insurance requirement that the Supreme Court is reviewing isn't the first federal mandate involving health care.

There's a Medicare payroll tax on workers and employers, for example, and a requirement that hospitals provide free emergency services to indigents. Health care is full of government dictates, some arguably more intrusive than President Barack Obama's overhaul law.

It's a wrinkle that has caught the attention of the justices.

Most of the mandates apply to providers such as hospitals and insurers. For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others.

One mandate affects just about everybody: Workers must pay a tax to finance Medicare, which collects about $200 billion a year.

It's right on your W-2 form, line 6, "Medicare tax withheld." Workers must pay it even if they don't have health insurance. Employees of a company get to split the tax with their employer. The self-employed owe the full amount, 2.9 percent of earnings.

Lindsey Donner, a small-business owner from San Diego, pays the Medicare tax although she and her husband are uninsured. Donner, 27, says she doesn't see much difference between the mandate that workers help finance Medicare and the health care law's requirement that nearly everyone has to have some sort of health insurance.

"My understanding of what is going on in the Supreme Court is that it seems to be something of a semantics issue," she said. "Ultimately, I don't see the big difference. If I am paying for Medicare, why can't I also be paying into something that would help me right now or in five years if I want to have children?"

Donner is a copy writer for businesses; her husband specializes in graphics design. In the past they had a health plan with a high deductible, but they found they were paying monthly premiums for insurance they never used — something she said they couldn't afford on a tight budget.

[buginme2]

Well that didn't go well now did it?

[Joe K]

Well that didn't go well now did it?

We won't know until the court rules.  I've been following this story and the concern I have is that the court will rule the mandate as unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a commercial product.  There is also a lot of confusion regarding a "mandate" vs. a "tax".  If congress had called the penalty a tax, there would be no constitutional issues as that is well within their powers to tax.  My personal view is that congress cannot mandate that we purchase anything from a commercial source.  If the mandate involved using non-profit insurance companies, I think the arguments would be quite different.

To make matters even more cloudy is the question of if the court finds the mandate unconstitutional, whether the court will "sever" the mandate from the rest of the law or strike down the entire law.

Joe                 

[pozniceguy]

lots of  "opinions"  in the  sunday  Talk shows    this  Morning ... generally agreeing that the  "mandate"  will fail  the  constitutional test...one of the  Justices...said...(  partial  paraphrase)  why not  just mandate  everyone  eat  Brocolli..it is  good  for you...if  you want a Medicare  system  then go ahead and  mandate  that.... (been proposed  and shot down by both parties  several times)....  but  forcing a mandatory  commercial purchase  isnt   going to fly....

big  confusion on the  positions as to what anyone is in favor of doing....all parties agree there is a need to  work on the issue of  Health care  the  method seems to be elusive...with both parties  switching reasons/opinions as they go  along


Nick

[Miss Philicia]

... and yet the mandate was a (and seen as constitutional) right wing idea dating back to the late 80's.

[mecch]

JRE that's a good article, good overview.

In Switzerland everyone must have health insurance.  If you have a very low salary or no salary there is government assistance for the monthly premium.  If you don't buy it, you pay stiff fines.

The insurance companies are all private.  They MUST accept anyone to their basic health plan.  That is the same basic plan offered by every company.  The government determines what is covered by the basic plan, not the insurance companies.  The price differs per company and how much deductible you choose.  You can start paying more and the sky is the limit, depending on the how broad and how luxurious of coverage you want.   The basic plan pretty much covers everything just like all the other European health systems, so there is no need to get the really high cost plans.

I don't understand what went wrong in the USA.  It seems to have finally figured out a way to join the other rich and even many developing countries in providing basic coverage for all citizens.   The Affordable Care system doesn't seem all the different than Switzerlands, overall.   

Its very hard to accept there are 50% of Americans, more or less, who think basic health care is not a right.  Its very hard to understand. 

I don't understand why people can't move forward and bite this bullet.  And find solutions for costs as they arise, which undoubtedly they will.  I'm sure many countries with universal care face tough economic challenges to keep it going.  But the once its in place, at least everyone is OK, year after year.  Until it all collapses.  But who says it has too? In the meantime....   The gulf widens.  So so so many Americans living precarious lives. 

[bocker3]

The Affordable Care system doesn't seem all the different than Switzerlands, overall.   

Yet our Constitutions are different.

Of course, I hope they don't throw any of it out -- but comparing this to any other country is useless, as the Court is deciding on the Constitutionality of it, and our Constitution is not the same as yours.

Guess we will all know the outcome in June.

Mike

[mecch]

Indeed. 
And look, the European state of affairs is far from rosey it seems:

In Rich Europe, More Join Ranks of Working Poor
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/world/europe/in-rich-europe-growing-ranks-of-working-poor.html?_r=1&hp

[leatherman]

... and yet the mandate was a (and seen as constitutional) right wing idea dating back to the late 80's.

that's the part that has just floored me during the debates about this issues under this president. As soon as he conceded to the Republicans to drop the single payer plan and go with an individual mandate, then suddenly it was no longer their idea and no longer constitutional but somehow it became part of the "evil" "Obamacare". wonder it someone has put together a utube vid of all the Repblicans crying out for "personal responsiblity" as part of health care reform during the last few previous years to show their extreme, and deranged, change of view?

[Hellraiser]

We won't know until the court rules.  I've been following this story and the concern I have is that the court will rule the mandate as unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a commercial product.  There is also a lot of confusion regarding a "mandate" vs. a "tax".  If congress had called the penalty a tax, there would be no constitutional issues as that is well within their powers to tax.  My personal view is that congress cannot mandate that we purchase anything from a commercial source.  If the mandate involved using non-profit insurance companies, I think the arguments would be quite different.

To make matters even more cloudy is the question of if the court finds the mandate unconstitutional, whether the court will "sever" the mandate from the rest of the law or strike down the entire law.

Joe               

Pretty much my take on this to the letter.  The only problem is my understanding of the judicial system is they cannot rule on pieces and parts.  If they could they are essentially making laws, which is what the legislative branch does.

I also don't think we should be forced to buy health insurance, it should be government run and cut out the middle man.  I think Obama was just trying to garner more support by appeasing the insurance lobby.

[mecch]

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (the THIRD Emanuel brother) was on Maher last week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQaptoKp-pQ

He explained that the big problem isn't the insurance companies.  Its overall costs.  And the costs of some diseases (and I'm afraid that includes us, of course!), and certain populations costing too much, and weaknesses in preventive care or just keeping people well.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/could-this-be-the-end-of-health-care-reform/?scp=3&sq=Ezekiel%20J.%20Emanuel&st=cse

Of course, one big thing will change if the court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional: Instead of the 32 million Americans predicted to gain coverage under the health insurance reform act, only around 16 million Americans would gain coverage. Even with subsidies for buying insurance, some healthy people would opt out of the state health insurance exchanges authorized by the act. This would drive up premiums by an estimated 15 to 20 percent and push more healthy people out of the market, creating a downward spiral until the only people buying insurance are those who are very sick. While many states may still try to move forward with their exchanges without the mandate, they will eventually collapse.


I think given the political climate these years, we can't ever expect a National Health Service type deal or some radical transformation.  Americans who want some kind of universal basic health insurance and/or health care (it's the same thing?) have to find some way to compromise with all the free marketers - "freedom" pundits.  Its the spiraling that has to stop.  Costs going up.  More uninsured - entering the market when very sick and very expensive. Or just going untreated.  Premiums going up.  This whole mess of who should be responsible - the employer, the state, the individual and his family?

That's what I don't understand.  16% of the population without health insurance - They are politically powerless? And rather uninteresting to the law makers, and the population who do have some security, health wise?  Its 50 million people uninsured, without Affordable Care act. 

The point to me is not to overly demonized a system that probably must remain private (insurance companies, health providers) in the US.  The point is figuring out a way to respect and serve the dignity of 50 million people in a very rich country.

[bocker3]

The only problem is my understanding of the judicial system is they cannot rule on pieces and parts.  If they could they are essentially making laws, which is what the legislative branch does.

they most certainly can invalidate pieces of this legislation.  They would simply rule that Congress did not have the power to create this mandate, but other provisions within the legislation were within their Constituionally given powers to do.

A single-payer system was NEVER going to happen, Obama had to go with this approach or none at all.

Mike

[tednlou2]

It really is unfortunate that Dems didn't push harder for the public option.  I think if they would have done a better job selling it, they could have gotten the public option.  Most still don't know what this law actually does.  I watch and read a lot of news, but only know the basics.  But, those are really good basics.  I'm still not sure how they would actually enforce the mandate.  In fact, I remember hearing some members of Congress say the mandate wouldn't actually be enforced.  I never understood what exactly they meant by that.  Dems got this law passed, but then treated it like the plague.  They did not want to talk about it and certainly didn't want to run on it.  So, you have so many people thinking they will have to give up their employer health insurance for some new program.  I've heard many say this.  The gov't mandates we all have to pay Medicare and Social Security tax.  We don't have a choice on that.

And, it is hard to get people to support something when most parts don't kick in for a few years.  I never understood the delay in the roll-out.  What is the reasoning for the multi-year roll-out?  We can do things quickly when we want.  The prescription drug plan (Part D) was rolled out much quicker.  And, I would have thought the Obama folks would have gotten the best legal minds to advise them whether the mandate would pass constitutional mustard.   

 

[mecch]

And, I would have thought the Obama folks would have gotten the best legal minds to advise them whether the mandate would pass constitutional mustard.     

One would thing that.   Which makes me wonder about this thing about the case pivoting on the use of the word penalty, versus tax.  Is that a genius insight by Republicans about how they can screw the Dems and win in the Supreme Court?  Completely cynical?  The law is constitutional but the Republicans found a strategy to destroy it anyway?

If the law is constitutional, and the Supreme Court rules against it based on politics, whats left to the Supreme Court's authority and role. 

Or, did the Dem bill righters just screw up? Came up with an idea and law that doesn't work under the Constitution? 

Almost a hundred years ago now the so called Progressive Era started to change the American society and the Supreme Court had a role in that, affirming constitutionality of laws passed by progressive congresses.  But the way I understand it, the Supreme Court always has to judge "societal support" for its decisions. Meaning its not some pure panel of brainiacs looking just at a law and the Constitution, but its a kind of sitting panel of legal scholars who are also sociologists, or applied anthropologists, and must take social support for their decisions into consideration in making their decisions. 

So called "socialized medicine" has NOT been sold to the majority of Americans. I wonder why this is so difficult and am discouraged it is so difficult.   

And then hope, well, we could have a progressive Court.  Sometimes we do. Meaning it rules progressively, socially.  But often it is simply passive.

If I understand a radio show I listened to recently, this is all related to the Indian Removal Act of 1830.  (That's right, stealing the land of the Native Americans and moving them all to concentration camps.  Now we all see it for what it was.) 

But anyway, the Supreme Court, in one case brought to it during this time, seemed to rule in a way that another case could be made that this was all unconstitutional!  It was not a ruling about removal being unconstitutional,  it was some technical matter about trade,  but it did set up tribal sovereignty, which worried Andrew Jackson who wanted to escalate relocation of indians.  So he said, OK, enforce that ruling, ha ha ha ha, because of course the Supreme Court couldn't, so Andrew Jackson just ignored the decision, and also continued with Indian Removal.  Which is what most U.S. citizens wanted.

So according to the commentator I was listening to, the Supreme Court had egg on its face and started to take into consideration societal support for its potential decisions....

Now, can you imagine Obama just saying, ha ha ha, it's unconstitutional - universal coverage?  Well we're gonna do it AGAIN and do it right this time!  I doubt the dems have the stomach or balls for this. Maybe. 

Maybe Obama's brilliant populist rhetoric will resurface in the campaign and progressive ideas can gain some gravitas.  Gee wouldn't it be brilliant if he could persuade the average joe to vote for a government that helps improve their own standard of living.  Doubt it. As long as the component of the Republicans who have the lock on public discourse are financially stable, and working in the media or have the ear of the media (tea party, for example), the self interest rules.  There is no "higher" or "human right" discourse about this.  Obama talks it up a bit but the people who DON'T have but need a health safety net seem to have little presence in this debate.