Obamacare Unconstitutional.......

[Sbane]

Ezra Klein's take on why Hudson's ruling isn't actually bad news for HCR (and answers Torie's question).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html

...

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents, and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.

...

This is a very good ruling indeed. The individual mandate always seemed unconstitutional, even if extremely necessary. The good news is that it isn't too hard to make people get health insurance without forcing them to (although I suppose stupid conservatives still wouldn't get it, but that's not exactly a bad thing. Evolution at work and all).

[Sbane]

Remember, judicial activism is only bad when you disagree with the ruling.

That's a given. The court has been more left leaning since the 1960's. Now it is more right leaning. So it is only reasonable that Democrats will now start caring about judicial activism while Republicans will suddenly forget all about it.

[Sbane]

Ezra Klein's take on why Hudson's ruling isn't actually bad news for HCR (and answers Torie's question).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html

...

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents, and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.

...

This is a very good ruling indeed. The individual mandate always seemed unconstitutional, even if extremely necessary. The good news is that it isn't too hard to make people get health insurance without forcing them to (although I suppose stupid conservatives still wouldn't get it, but that's not exactly a bad thing. Evolution at work and all).

Only problem, it would still effectively sink the other major part of the bill: It is impractical to cover pre-existing conditions without having premiums for everybody covered by pre-existing conditions be paid for all the time.  If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, but not any other part of the bill, then Congress must act, or else the health insurance industry shuts down in 2014.

I fully understand that, but there are other ways to get people to get health insurance without forcing them. You can easily give people say 6 months to a year to get health insurance. If they don't, instead of making them pay a fee (which might be considered unconstitutional), you just make it basically impossible for them to re-enter the health insurance market. Make them pay everything out of pocket. Only idiots would get hurt by this.

[Sbane]

Never has there been a more shameless or craven power grab by a partisan, unelected judiciary to overturn the results of the democratic process because they could not get their way playing by the rules. During the health care debate we heard from the GOP that it was a bad bill, not that it was unconstitutional. If they believed the latter, the entire matter should have been mooted to start with. Instead, they tried to play the legislative game and lost; so now they're turning to the Courts.

Isn't the individual mandate a Republican idea? These guys are so full of it......

[Sbane]

Actually that's the core problem behind the very premise of health insurance. That's also why I don't have health insurance, but do have accident insurance (though I guess under Republican logic I don't need even that, if I were in a car accident I'd get free emergency room treatment which is perfectly fine.) I'm not going to pay some insurance company over $100 a month so I can pay only $40 when I have to make a clinic visit instead of $80.

That's why I'm perfectly fine with putting the insurance companies out of business: They are pointless. The mandate is basically just forcing people to use the private sector for what the public sector could do more efficiently. It's sure as hell better than the status quo though.

The ER is not free for the uninsured. A friend of mine has severe asthma and recently ended up in the ICU after a particularly bad episode. He now has a $50,000 hospital bill.

That's why I have accident insurance. I'm just pointing out how stupid stupid Republican talking points are.

Following their advice would lead to bankruptcy. Party of fiscal responsibility indeed.

[Sbane]

Beyond waivers, it seems that Obamacare is slated to bankrupt the states as they have to beef up their medicaid programs. If that is the case, the law is basically DOA no matter what SCOTUS does.

How was Medicaid funded when it was first established? The states didn't pitch in?

[Sbane]

Why don't they want to expand coverage?  Modern GOPers believe access to health care is a privilege, not a right, and that health insurance is an elective product, not a human necessity.  The rest is rationalization.

Excellent post Anvikshiki, and this is basically the main point. The GOP just are not interested in Health care reform. They say they have their own ideas on the matter, but would rather repeal and go back to the status quo. A debate certainly can be had on how best to provide a basic level of care for the working poor, but congressional Republicans are not interested in that debate, as has been made clear over the last two years.