Wrap-up of Affordable Care Act Hearings
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-29/wrap-affordable-care-act-hearings
One of the most closely watched legal cases in decades wrapped up yesterday afternoon. Ahead of this week’s Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act, people lined up all weekend hoping to secure one of the few seats open to the public. The historic nature of the case, and its possible political ramifications, have attracted much attention. A ruling is not expected until late June at the earliest – right in the middle of the presidential election campaign. A decision either way could well have a galvanizing effect on one or both sides. Join us as we breakdown the arguments, try to glean how the justices might vote and consider what happens next.
Guests
Joan Biskupic
Legal affairs editor for Reuters News. She has written biographies on Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia.
Stuart Taylor
author and journalist, covering the health care case for Kaiser Health News, and a contributing editor for National Journal
Susan Dentzer
editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, and an on-air analyst on health issues for The PBS NewsHour
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The affordable care act is to affordability as the patriot act is to patriotic, it isn't and it's not.
It doesn't matter, the justices are going to strike down the mandate which will bring all of this to a close so you can squirm with glee....well, maybe not until late June, but why not start now?
For those stupid enough to think there's hope turning back progressive big government, a smirk can be raised at best.
The public may not see the entire picture.Why have Republicans denounced their own decades old mandate plan? It`s easily understood,if you realize what damage Republican reform is doing to education.Not only the privatization of grade schools,but eliminating financial aid to college students. A shortage of doctors will mandate these doctors take care of those who can pay the big bucks.The Obamacare plan would give health care access to 50 million uninsured Americans. They cannot allow that.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
".Why have Republicans denounced their own decades old mandate plan?"
There are elements in the republican party that have facilitated the progressive big government liberal movement. The cancer known as the democrat party has spread it's dependent nanny state to the point where some self serving republicans see no other way to get elected.
As for the rest of your wild assertions, can you back any of that up with some facts.
The court seems skeptical about the constitutionality of the mandate to carry health insurance. Many of the arguments raised against it--casting the burden from old to young, requiring Americans to participate in an insurance pool--can also be levied against Social Security. If the mandate is declared unconstitutional, what are the arguments that could prevent Social Security from also being declared unconstitutional? Or is it just a matter of politics? 5-4, 5-4, 5-4.
Several facts:
The number of people who lacked health insurance in 2010 climbed to 49.9 million, up from 49 million in 2009, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.
Nationwide, 16.3% of the population was uninsured last year, statistically unchanged from 2009.
Three groups comprised the bulk of the uninsured in 2010, including foreign-born residents (oh damn foreigners!) who are not U.S. citizens, young adults ages 19 to 25 (damn kids!) and low-income families with an annual household income of less than $25,000(damn poor people!).
Much of the declines in insured rates in recent years can be attributed to the loss of employer-provided coverage, which fell amid sustained unemployment and as employers continued to cut back on benefits. (despite the efforts of the "job creators!)
The percentage of people who had health insurance through their employers fell to 55.3% in 2010 from 56.1% the year before, continuing a long, downward trend. In 2000, 64.1% of the population received health insurance through their employers. (more profits to the bottom line and the fat cats, less goodies for you).
"As the job market remains weak, Americans can no longer depend on their workplace for consistent affordable coverage," said Elise Gould, Director of Health Policy Research for the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. (Not Heritage obviously).
"What prevents Social Security from also being declared unconstitutional?"
Yes indeed Brad....what?
I'm sure that the conservatives on here will just love to seize upon this....throw everyone into the street. Everyone knows that the liberals and progressives just want to punish the achievers and the successful. The less fortunate should simple get out of their way. After all, it is THEIR country....they've paid for it! Not fortunate enough to have a six figure job? Tough, you're a looser and should suffer the consequences. Haven't put enough away for your retirement? Oh well better die quickly. Had your nest egg wiped out by some medical calamity? You just weren't wise with your investments.
Before we start moaning about what is and what isn’t in the constitution. And, for those who think the founding fathers agreed on everything and constitutionally speaking everything is all neatly packaged in the Constitution as the inerrant word of “God”. Here is something for you modern day “originalists” with your limited thoughts akin to the bumper stickers that read “If it ain’t King James, it ain’t the Bible”
The founders disagreed a lot and right from the beginning, case in point: "Hamilton had turned the tables on his opposition. Where Jefferson, Madison, and Randolph argued that the federal government had no power to incorporate a bank because it was not explicitly allowed to do so in the Constitution, Hamilton retorted that the government enjoyed all powers necessary to its functioning that were not explicitly forbidden. Hamilton's logic was unanswerable. From that day forth the doctrine of 'implied powers' increasingly dominated legal interpretation of the Constitution. Hamilton had gained not one but two victories, the establishment of the Bank and the widespread acceptance of the doctrine of implied powers.
So the fact that we argue about the constitution today is well rooted in our country's history since the above argument took place just 2 years….TWO YEARS….. after the states ratified the US Constitution.
Drop the unconstitutional argument…..now.
http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_archives.php?1919
It does not even have to be argued, social security and medicare are unconstitutional but they will never be overturned so don't worry. They should have been struck down in their infancy like Obama care will hopefully be.
I know the figure on the uninsured I meant the other nonsense about republicans.
Patsy and TB are the same person.
Social Security and Medicare are 2 completely different animals from the affordable care act. If the individual mandate goes down, it shouldn't put either program in jeopardy from a constitutional challenge.
SS and Medicare are government programs. Tax money goes in, tax money goes out to pay for care.
The mandate portion of the affordable care act requires you to purchase insurance from a *private* business, under pain of a penalty fee if you fail to do so. So you are required to go out and hand over your money to a privately-owned, for-profit insurance business. It's that forced-enrichment of private insurance companies that's under scrutiny, and SS/Medicare doesn't involve that dynamic at all. So if the court finds that the federal government can't require me to buy insurance from a business, or cars from detroit, or oranges from florida, etc etc, that doesn't have any bearing on Medicare or Social Security whatsoever.
@Teece
By your argument, the patriot act is just hunk-dory.
"Moaning about what is and what isn't in the constitution" prevents far greater problems than it creates. If anything, we could do with a little more constitutional moaning these days (Kelo v. New London, Guantanamo Bay, etc)
If one's Child is ill, or looks ill, or feels ill, S/He MUST be taken to
a Physician/Hospital which normally requires purchase of its services.
Further, there are no exemptions on grounds of Religious Freedom or for
any other mode of treatment, no Veggies, no Prayers, no nuthin but Government approved Medicine. Failure to purchase those services is a crime, probably a Felony.
How remarkable, a Half-Century-old video clip of an already well
advanced into Alzheimers, Reagan, equating Universal Medical Care with a
Socialist Takeover, has a Hundred Million Republicans reaching for their
guns!!
You're all nuts!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:28:37 PM
One more chance to tell the government that we won't stand for them to pick our pockets. This purvasive belief that all money is the governments and they are allowing us to keep some of what we earn is getting old real quick. We need to stand up for our rights as a country and tell them we wont take it anymore. Go to college get a good job and most important be a part of your community, by helping your fellow citizens. We don't need or want government telling us what we should do to help each other. We are capable of doing that through churches and community organizations. Can't you people see that further taxes only put more people in a position where they believe that their social responsibilities are being taken over by the government and they are slowing down their donations. Doing the right thing by choice is always better then the liberal gestapo robbing you to give to who they determine is more deserving of your hard earned wages. Or would you prefer we all just quit our jobs and live for free on the government rolls. The best situation for taxation from the governments position is to maximize revenue, not tax rate. What this means is at what rate does the government bring in the most money? We can all agree that 0% taxes means no money. But 100% means no money also as no one could possible pay employees. So the maximum revenue is some where in between. Many of us believe that we are on the wrong side of the bell curve. But I'm sure there are those among you who, using faulty logic will arbitarily determin this means 50% taxation. Maybe we need more private schools to help those people understand economics, the public schools have failed us in this area. As for the relevance of this rant, the manditory healthcare amounts to a tax as the government is dictating a fee on the people.
removed as duplicate
Family court judges across the country mandate health care daily .Divorced parents are routinely required to provide health insurance.People go to jail,even if their faith says no to doctors.Heck,George W.Bush opened a vacationing Congress to write legislation regarding Terry Schaivo, forcing her to EAT HER BROCCOLI. The People of the United Stated deserve better,but Obamacare is a start.
These 5 T-Party activist judges have an entirely different U.S. Constitution.In their version,Corporations are people,and real people don`t count.It took a Civil War to free slaves,and 100 years more to get them rights. Somehow,Corporations got super liberties without 1 shot being fired.Without 1 piece of legislation.Nothing,while even foreign Corporations have rights,American born citizens do not.
I'm sure that those who are against a public mandate and all in favor of a private option will have no problem with posting a bond to ensure the the hospital and doctors will get paid in the event they use emergency services. The other side of not requiring health care coverage is to allow providers to choose not to treat you.
If the mandate is struck down, I look forward to you having Ms Sebelius back to explain why she and the current administration were so eager to cram unconstitutional policy down our collective throats. If they can't uphold the constitution, and actually vigorously pursue policy that is in violation of it, they should leave office.
I understand the difference forced participation in a government program (like social security) and the government forcing citizens to purchase something from a private provider or face a penalty. However, the objections raised by the more conservative justices did not seem concerned with the distinction. There were questions about the limits on what people could be forced to buy, and there were concerns about shifting money unfairly from younger to older people. Also, I'm not entirely sure that social security taxes are truly a tax. They seem more like payments into a government-run annuity, one that competes (perhaps unfairly) with the private market. Or better, social security and medicare might actually be gifts to private industry because they take poorer, older, and sicker people out of the market with which private industry must deal. Also, if social security were truly a tax, one certainly must wonder why earnings above the cap (something like $100,000) and capital gains are exempted.
Much of the discussion in the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday were about whether health care is a "market good", some indeed ridiculous and bordering on facetious, trying to equate the purchase of health care with broccoli and burial insurance.
But it is very simple to understand why health care is not a market good instead of going through all the contortions we heard Tuesday. Completely aside from any moral or compassionate considerations, here are three reasons why health care is not a "market good" and needs to be treated as an exceptional case:
#1 We do not choose the illnesses or injuries we suffer the same way we could choose an item available on the open market, a "market good". They choose us.
#2 Medical costs can rapidly escalate to such high amounts that a person with an average income could not reasonably be expected to pay for them. The same principle applies with homeowners' or auto insurance, which are there to cover catastrophic costs most individuals could not cover on their own, such as a house burning down or a severe car accident. This is true insurance: sharing losses and preventing financial calamity. Our health insurance does neither. It is very revealing that we call it "health" insurance; it is just for the healthy, in contrast to German-speaking countries, who call it "Krankenversicherung", or sickness insurance. Insurance should be for the sick.
#3 You cannot realistically negotiate for health care costs the way you can with real market goods. Have you ever seen a price list on a doctor's office wall? No, I didn't think so. We are not able to get the information we would need to make these decisions; try getting this information from a doctor or insurance company. Or, try being admitted to an ER in a semi-comatose state and try to negotiate for cheaper care. Besides, even when you are in sound mind, if the doctor recommends a treatment or a drug, are you seriously going to bargain on price if you really need it?
This is what it's really about. The Conservatives keep screaming about freedom, and this is the freedom that they are talking about:
"It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another, freedom from the modern world in which we live. It’s about the freedom to ignore the injured, walk away from those in peril, to never pick up the phone or eat food that’s been inspected. It’s about the freedom to be left alone. And now we know the court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it’s 1804."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches...
American Exceptionalism? What a joke.... this is an Empire in Decline, a nation clearly centered on "ME, screw you, I got mine!"
As our peculiar, inefficient and byzantine "medical care as a for-profit commodity - kind of" approach continues to spiral in cost - with the subsequent problem of access being beyond the reach of increasing numbers of citizens - "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" may take on a perverse new meaning.
The "victory" of being free to fend for themselves may eventually be a pyrrhic one for non-wealthy regressives who find themselves being deemed unworthy of continued existence according to "market forces" (which are apparently not a human construct, but rather some intrinsic component of the known universe that trumps any other consideration - at least for imbeciles).
While I find some aspects of the Affordable Care Act problematic I think most Republicans are avoiding their own arguments. Didn’t they argue for insurance companies and their interests during the health care debates? The individual mandate was meant to extend the insurance driven system in the US. I find it ironic that the party of “personal responsibility” completely scoffs at the idea of greater insurance coverage. The constitutionality argument is only applied as a matter of convenience and provides an easy exit without offering any other solution or compromise.
Do diligence demands that it be reported that:
-the votes against this legislation are from "Justices" appointed by George Bush and other republicans
- most of the 26 states, save for Maine, show that the United States continues to suffer from a hangover from the Civil War.
Winston-Salem, NC - Diane, PLEASE ask your guests this question. I teach rhetoric and argumentation at a prestigious college. No pundit or lawyer has mentioned that the central conservative argument against the mandate, the 'broccoli" question, is a slippery slope fallacy. It is just silly to assert that if the court upholds the mandate then there are no possible limits to federal power. The court can write a narrow opinion, as they did when they said in Bush v. Gore when they explicitly said the decision cannot be used as a precedent. The attorney general did a miserable job arguing this point. If the principle were limited to interstate industries that are essential to the public welfare, and which are required to deliver their services regardless of the customers' ability to pay, it would limit federal authority short of vegetables and gym memberships! What do your guests say?
What are these alternatives to the mandate? What are the gentler ways to pull people into the insurance pool?
Valerie
Washington, DC
"What are the gentler ways to pull people into the insurance pool?"
To educate everyone in this country that they are eventually going to get sick and die! We do a lousy job of educating our citizenry, young people believe they are immortal and they are really only one illness away from non-existence.
If we had a good pandemic like the Spanish Flu of 1918 things would change in a hurry.
As to broccoli and the public health. If it was required to prevent and stop the spread of dengue fever, malaria, mad cow, powdered broccoli would be available in capsules, or as a quick mix drink with enhancing flavors and the public health official would stand by while the pill was swallowed, or the dosage drunk. We would watch the adams apple, and check the mouth. Unless these tasks were done, one would be quarantined to the back forty, not allowed to pass, and carry the mad cow thru the neighborhood and towards the fine folk. The poor can be set on a path, 'to the cure' and watched that they didn't go off the path, 'a la Bataan Death March', and then a 'strange wind' could whip up and blow them into an adjacent ditch, or they could run for cover at the 'plague dust cloud' and then be covered 'conveniently, and landscaped for a bull works, with dogwoods, etc. and lily's planted in 'memorial' of the 'unfortunate' but 'fortunate' miraculous event, a miracle, truly! Right here, in the Old Commonwealth, the New Regency plantings, and the 'poor folk' no longer 'always with us' but landscaped below, having given their utmost and all like our military. Lilys and wafting birches a memorial, to all the Regency's History of Grace, prevention of spread of 'mad cow'.
NOW HERE THIS: If you don't empty standing water, or cut your weeds, if you maintain a hazard, or attractive nuisance, the city or state will take care of it if you don't, and hold you hostage until you pay for their services. It is for the public health, a la US ARMY medical experience, health of troops, Panama Canal. etc.
In Va, no Tobacco settlement money went to patches from Public Health. You can figure that one out for yourselves. Same ole, same ole, poor mules are always with us. Carry on wit yu selves, oh Grand Regency, Sic Semper Tyranus former Commonwealth,
One of your guest keeps saying that states can do anything they want. If that were the case, there would still be slavery, women would not be able to vote, etc.
To all of you who really want this health care coverage, go buy it. No one is saying you can't have it, just that you are not required to have it. And if your concerned with tax rates write a check to the US treasury, I assure you they will cash it. Just keep your oppresive socialist ideals off my back. Or you could go to college get a real job and understand what it means to earn a living and have the slackers try to pick your pockets everyday. You are entitled to nothing you have to earn what you want. Take moment to look in the mirror and you'll see the vast majority of your problems staring right back.