The Supreme Court Will Uphold Health Care Reform, and Here's Why

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/11/11136/supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-reform-and-heres-why

Submitted by Wendell Potter on November 17, 2011 - 1:45pm

<snip>One Sick Employee Leads Insurers to Jack Up Rates for All

One of the reasons for that decline is the common practice of "purging" (again, their word, not mine). Insurers routinely purge small businesses from their rolls when an employee gets sick and has high medical expenses. All it takes is one worker at a small company to get seriously sick or injured for an insurance company to jack up rates so high the employer has no choice but to drop coverage for all employees and their dependents.

Even if their employers continue to offer coverage, more and more workers are taking a pass because they can't afford their share of the premiums. This, plus the fact that insurers have refused to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions, explains why the number of Americans without coverage now exceeds 50 million.

Insurers have continued to be profitable, but those profits will soon start to decline sharply because of another penny-wise but pound-foolish practice: shifting more and more of the cost of care from them to us by moving us into high-deductible policies. Absent a mandate requiring that we purchase coverage, more and more of us will come to realize that these policies are not worth the premiums we have to pay for them.

A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 30 million Americans are now underinsured as a result of being enrolled in policies that require them to pay more out of their own pockets for care than they can afford. Increasing numbers of those Americans are consequently resorting to another inefficient practice: foregoing needed care. In doing so, they are running the risk of needing more expensive care down the road.

[Kolesar]

1. Justice Kennedy not only will be saving the Republicans from themselves, he will be giving them...

Justice Kennedy will recognize that the future of the free-market health insurance system rests completely on his shoulders. I believe he'll also realize that by declaring the mandate (and the entire law) constitutional, he not only will be saving the Republicans from themselves, he will be giving them a terrific gift. They'll be able to campaign with renewed (but insincere) vigor against Obamacare, arguing that it must be repealed. I say insincere because conservative candidates will want to keep their benefactors in the insurance industry happy after the 2012 elections. They're not serious about repealing the entire law -- just the parts insurers don't like. And with Kennedy's affirmative vote, the insurers will have what they need -- billions in federal subsidies to help Americans pay for the coverage the government says they must buy.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

11. Mandatory health insurance premiums is not like privatizing Social Security

"Obamacare" ... I am happy that somebody cares!!

[rhett o rick]

15. Let's try to get all American with health insurance and worry about that later. nm

[Denninmi]

2. Yup, that's me. Foregoing care.

Haven't been to a doctor since early 2008. My employer doesn't provide insurance, and Blue Cross raised the rates so much I had no choice but switch to a high deductible policy. I pay about 200 a month now, with a $5000 deductible. I would be paying over $500 a month with a reasonable deductible -- I can't afford 40% of my take home pay for health insurance.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

4. That is the first time I have seen someone refer to President Obama as Barry on this site

Just couldn't help yourself could ya?

Don

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Welcome to DU

Fuck yes it matters. I have only seen that term used on rapture ready teabugger sites until now.

Just joined DU today, huh?

Don

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[classof56]

9. How I see fit is to put you on my ignore list.

I'm worn out with people insulting the President. That in no way, IMHO, encourages productive discourse and I expect better from DUers. I'm sure you'll keep lurking and posting, I just won't be reading them. After seven decades on this planet, one of the things most important to me is treating others the way I'd like to be treated. It's the least I can do in this free world that seems to offer less and less hope for the future.

Blessings.

[blue neen]

10. It does matter how he is referred to.

If you don't want to sound disrespectful, then refer to the President in the proper way.

Thank you.

:dem:

[TheKentuckian]

12. Counting on a strong inclination to support and advance fascism to maintain a plan

supposedly for our benefit should be setting off every alarm in your mind, body, spirit, and soul.

The sleepers must awaken, this is truly a horrible idea. There is absolutely nothing worth supporting such a precedent and the people who claim this is a step toward single payer need to stay out of the hooch. This law absolutely props up the present predatory system and enshrines the insurance cartel into "Too big to fail" status.

If folks would just process the fact that if we had accepted a similar scam, we would have had Healthcare "reform" decades ago, we might see some light bulbs turn on. The same if folks would accept where the origins and proponents of this scheme and how long the right wing has pushed just such a effort as their "answer".

We are much closer to real and beneficial reform without the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act, the insurance cartel's path was unsustainable. The industry was on a suicide spiral that would let us off this insane and horrible ride and little option but to try choices that might work in the people's favor.

Being pro-mandate means you are 100% pro-insurance cartel.

Sorry but it does, it is the cartel who desperately needs the mandate to even exist a decade or two out here.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. It is a horrible idea! The health care insurance blood sucking vultures loves it, for good reason.

[area51]

19. +1

Exactly. The mandate will not get us to single-payer; the exact opposite. It will enshrine the predatory, serial-killer insurance agencies as "too big to fail". This also won't get us a right to health care, and 100,000 people will continue to die per year due to lack of health care.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. This should be its own OP.

[socialindependocrat]

13. Here's my breakdown

retire at $60,000

retirement pay ~$2000/mo ($24,000/yr)

ins premium 325/mo ($3,900/yr)

deduct - Dr/Hosp $1,000/yr 500/yr each person

deduct meds $ 700/yr 350/yr each person

23.33% premium and deductible for health care

now we're down to $17,500 minus income tax.

The company used to have employees pay higher rates to offset the retirees premiums
then they discontinued the practice. I would have paid higher premiums, while working,
in return for a little help when retired but they changed it - why??? I didn't say
anything because we had been taught not to cause problems. The company made the decision
and it wasn't going to be changed back.

We learned that every time they changed something, we got screwed and they got the benefit.
And the savings went to the hierarchy - in bonuses.

[NNN0LHI]

16. I can explain what happened

At one time, about the same time you and I entered the workforce, everyones pay and benefits were patterned after union workers pay and benefits. Didn't even need to belong a union to have everyones pay patterned after union pay and benefits. Just the threat of the workers organizing and becoming unionized was enough.

But a lot of Americans fucked up and and stopped supporting our union workers whenever they could. So guess what happened? Now everyone's pay and benefits are being patterned after non-union workers.

Stop and think back about it for a minute and try to remember if this is what you have seen happening about since 1980? Because this is exactly what happened.

Don

[socialindependocrat]

30. Since the mid 80s

Since the 80s there was a drive to have workers move up the ladder....

What this was, was getting unskilled labor to take on jobs that had
been filled by PhDs. This raised the salaries of the rank and file but
also, lowered the salaries of the jobs in question.

Then, more work was piled on and if you complained, they brought in two
people to replace you rather than raise your salary by $2,000

Then, the combined the cost of living wage with your merit raise
and the total didn't cover the COL increase for the year - So you
lost there, too.

Then they started to tel you, you were lucky to have a job so you started
to work 12-14 hours a day to see if you could get the next promotion.

Over time they had lower pay with people doing more work. That's why our
productivity is up and the salaries are going down.

And the money that was saved didn't go back into the company -
it went to bonuses for the CEO and the board members.

[Scuba]

14. Despite a handful of good things in the law, overall it seems to be...

... a carefully crafted attempt to prove that government can't "do healthcare".



Medicare for All, please.

[former9thward]

17. The OP is a policy argument not a Constitutional argument.

The SC will rule on whether the health care law is constitutional or not. Their ruling will not be on whether it is good policy or not. I believe the court will rule against it because of the mandate. At no point in our history has the federal government mandated that people buy product or services from a private third party. If the mandate was constitutional then the federal government could order people buy any product that it chose.

[Prophet 451]

20. Trying to think of a nice way to say you're wrong

Firstly, the decision will have nothing to do with the law. The decision will be made purely on the basis of party politics. Whether the conservative majority support or oppose the law will depend entirely on whether they want to give Obama a black eye or want to give insurance companies millions more customers.

Secondly, the federal government HAS mandated that people buy a product from a third party before. The Militia Act of 1792 mandated that every able-bodied male purchase various items which would cost around $2000 in present-day money. There is also "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman" (1798) which mandated that privately employed sailors purchase health insurance. Both Acts were passed by many of the very same people who wrote and signed the Constitution and they didn't think either was unconstitutional. On that basis, the mandate is also constitutional.

[former9thward]

22. If the only thing mandate supporters can reach to are two

obscure acts more than two hundred years ago they are in trouble. I'm sure if you went though every law passed by every congress in our history you would find some weird stuff. But the rare exceptions certainly prove the rule.

But there is good chance that you are right in that it will be made by political views.

[JoePhilly]

26. Those cases are called precedents ... unless you think the Constitution, which is even older ...

is also a weak frame of reference????

[former9thward]

31. No they are not precedents.

Supreme Court decisions are precedents. Would you want to live by every law that has ever been passed by Congress in our history? Or do you want to just pick and choose odd examples that you think support your cause? I think we know the answer.

[girl gone mad]

28. That's a terrible example.

The Militia Act was dependent on the Militia Clause, not the Commerce Clause. Congress never enforced or intended to enforce the Militia Act at the federal level. It was solely created to help states standardize their local militias

What makes this example even worse is the Act's legacy of complete failure. Why choose as your legal "precedent" a long since repealed artifact of history which provides so much fertile ground for critics of a federal mandate, with its worst case scenarios exceeded at just about every level?

[JoePhilly]

21. The "mandate" is a tax that you can avoid paying, making it quite

similar to the deduction you get for home mortgage interest.

The way it is structured, you still are not required to purchase insurance. But if you don't, your taxes go up. So the bottom line is that you can avoid the tax buy purchasing insurance.

And then, the mandate does not dictate specifically which insurance product you have to purchase. Instead, its sets a wide array of parameters as to which types of plans can be purchased such that they met the requirement for the reduced tax. This is

Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce is very broad.

But as others have noted, it is more likely that the right leaning part of the supreme court will not be terribly interested in the Constitutionality of the law, but only about whether it hurts the GOP and their lobbyists. Which brings us back to Kennedy. As others have said, he probably decides this. The liberal wing of the SC will recognize congress's broad ability to regulate interstate commerce and levy taxes, the 4 right wing folks will consider the impact to the GOP's Corporate controllers, and Kennedy will decide.

[former9thward]

24. It is still a mandate because no one wants to see their taxes go up.

The home mortgage deduction is an incentive to buy housing, not a penalty if you want to rent. That was the stated intention of Congress when they passed that law.

If the insurance mandate was constitutional the federal government could mandate you buy two pounds of poultry every week for health reasons. Where and what type would be up to you. The supporters of the mandate will have to explain why that is not proper but insurance is. But maybe they think that would be proper.

[JoePhilly]

25. Your example fails.

The government has not mandated that you buy anything as specific as 2lbs of turkey to avoid a tax.

And, if YOU eat or buy turkey does not add to ER costs.

In the US, if you collapse on the street, an ambulance will come. They will take you to the hospital, and save your life. And they will not ask about your preferred deli meat.

The COST of doing this, saving you (or me) engages the ECONOMY directly. And the Congress gets to regulate the economy.

Buying insurance is also an incentive. Get insurance, avoid a tax. Get a mortgage, avoid a tax.

You would be correct if the government told you exactly which insurance you had to buy or which mortgage you had to have ... but that is not true, and that is why your 2lbs turkey argument also fails.

[girl gone mad]

29. Buying and eating healthy vegetables could reduce ER costs.

Since 2/3rds of uncompensated care in this country is provided to insured patients, you can probably make a better case for mandating the purchase of healthy foods and exercise equipment than you can for mandating the purchase of health insurance if your goal is simply to reduce ER costs.

Oh, and the purchase of safety equipment such as airbags and helmets, should be federally mandated too, then.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.