Obamacare is unConstitutional

[mike114]

And please, let's not get into a discussion of the Commerce clause as it has been twisted inside out to somehow excuse the growth of government. The Constitution is a document limiting the powers of a central federal government, but yet the Founders put in this clause that would allow the government unlimited powers allowing it to trample all over the States?? All one has to do is read Wickard v. Filburn to realize to what absurd lengths the government will use the Commerce clause to enforce it's heavy handed regulations.

 

[mike114]

mike: without... interstate..highways, how would you drive from one state to another? you know, in your (not offroad) car. Not your carriage.

Also, with the lessening value of sea/water transportation in particular...

And, if you don't realize the value that good roads have in transporting troops and equipment... (not to mention the... interstate commerce... aspects). Plus, the money is given to the states to build roads. So isn't your issue then with state corruption?

Additionally, a post road is any road over which mail is carried. So, every road (used by the post office) is a post road. Not just roads which connect the post office to other roads.

Are you implying that roads, highways, airports could somehow not be built if not for the benevolence of the federal government?

And read what Jefferson wrote to Madison. That's not what post roads meant at all. Again, it's been a distortion of history which has been spoon fed to us to justify more intrusion by the Feds.

 

[foxII]

This isn't true, because of other requirements that are coming down; such as minimum MLR. Additionally, requiring everyone have insurance is one way of bringing down the costs of adding the folks who are currently uninsurable and live in high risk pools / can't get insured to the market without nuking everyone's rates.

The medical loss ratio has always been an issue of debate over the way it's calculated and it's accuracy. I'm sure you will agree with that.
To argue this point would be futile. Anyone can search find the "truth" regarding this point, so in essence it's moot.

Yeah, this is true to an extent -- the rising cost of premiums is largely driven by providers costing more.

Only to an extent?

Really? Tell me then, what's the average cost to bring a therapy to market? How many therapies don't make it? What's the average cost for those? How much is a fair price for a therapy (big pharma) to charge?.

An economist would say look up the law of diminishing costs and see if it justifies a continuing price.

Pfizer (who has the largest blockbuster drug, which, on a sidenote, is going off patent in 2 years and is a model for why the blockbuster model is dead in pharma) put up a 5% profit margin in the most recent quarter. Man, it sure is the overcharging that causes that, huh? Lipitor (again, the highest grossing drug in the world, at ~$10b/year) costs $2/day on average in the states. Not exactly going to bankrupt you. But the issue is the novel treatments, which cost more because of the ridiculous cost to develop them... and don't generate even 10% as much revenue as the blockbuster chemical drugs, generally.

To this I would say, well what happens when it goes off patent, will the other pharms charge the same or more or less. What do you even think?
bottom line is they raped Americans till their patent runs out. If what I'm saying is not true just look to the prices of other knockoffs of drugs....Hmmm they could make it much cheaper, why.

If only hospitals were making a substantial profit, huh?
CYH - 2.61%
UHS - 4.97%
LPNT - 4.71%
THC - unsure. (1.86% operating margin; the numbers are thrown off by recognizing a tax credit). This means their true margin was probably under 1%.
HCA is private, so we don't have access to their margin..

For the sake of argument I'll accept your numbers. Perhaps these numbers center around the mean for this industry. If not perhaps you would like to see them with a 80% profit margin....Hmmmmm where would they get the money for that. Oh yeah, from my premiums.

I'll say it again: private payers get overcharged to compensate for bad debt and losses from other payers.

I agree. And if everyone has to pay "before" they get sick there is no bad debt

You also aren't only paying for the tylenol, you're paying for a lot of things that are generally packaged with your care.

Apparently you don't get your bills itemized. If you did you would know that any medication given is listed under pharmacy and any nurse would be nursing assistant (private/semi private).

http://www.georgiainjurylawyerblog.com/2010/03/outrageous_hospital_charges_ex.html
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp

Bottom line, if you feel hospitals charge correctly then it's unlikely price is of a concern to you.

And PS: I am a vet. I don't know about others but I am happy with the care I get. If I had to get the same tests done in the civ market I would have been fcuked.
But to each his own.

 

[zauper]

Are you implying that roads, highways, airports could somehow not be built if not for the benevolence of the federal government?

And read what Jefferson wrote to Madison. That's not what post roads meant at all. Again, it's been a distortion of history which has been spoon fed to us to justify more intrusion by the Feds.

Really? This is my last post on the topic, but:

Here's the dictionary:

S: 👎 post road (a road over which mail is carried)

I'll take the definition over an inference from a letter.

Could roads still be built? Yes, but then we'd be dealing with an unco-ordinated network of roads if we were trying to go across the country.

Fox:

The medical loss ratio has always been an issue of debate over the way it's calculated and it's accuracy. I'm sure you will agree with that.
To argue this point would be futile. Anyone can search find the "truth" regarding this point, so in essence it's moot.

What issues do you have with the definition being used?

Only to an extent?

Yes, only to an extent. There are other costs as well.

An economist would say look up the law of diminishing costs and see if it justifies a continuing price.

Would the economist also recommend that we not research treatments into diseases that kill people?

To this I would say, well what happens when it goes off patent, will the other pharms charge the same or more or less. What do you even think?
bottom line is they raped Americans till their patent runs out. If what I'm saying is not true just look to the prices of other knockoffs of drugs....Hmmm they could make it much cheaper, why.

Yes, the cost will go down when it goes off patent. Yes, generics are cheaper. You know why? Because they don't need to do clinical trials to get them approved. They don't need to research the drug. They just... copy someone else's work.

For the sake of argument I'll accept your numbers. Perhaps these numbers center around the mean for this industry. If not perhaps you would like to see them with a 80% profit margin....Hmmmmm where would they get the money for that. Oh yeah, from my premiums.

Considering that those are every single publicly traded hospital network in the country, you don't really have an option.

I didn't say that they need higher margins, just that their margins are not so high that you should be complaining about it. These are also the public traded networks. Smaller networks (they range from 150 to 45 in size, which is far larger than your standard hospital / hospital network) would have higher costs due to lack of purchasing power, and lower revenue due to lack of negotiating power with insurance plans -- in short, substantially lower margins.

Also, your premiums would not have any impact on hospital margins. Sorry, you pay your premium to your insurance company. Not to the hospital.

Medicare pays 95% of cost. Medicaid pays, on (national) average, around 66% of cost. You get to pay more to subsidize them.

I agree. And if everyone has to pay "before" they get sick there is no bad debt

If everyone has insurance, there can still be bad debt. Google "medicare bad debt" if you're curious. (Or, it's just simply people not paying their co-pays / co-insurance)

Apparently you don't get your bills itemized. If you did you would know that any medication given is listed under pharmacy and any nurse would be nursing assistant (private/semi private).

Outrageous Hospital Charges Exposed :: Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog
10 ways to avoid outrageous hospital overcharges - MSN Money

My insurance plan charges me a per diem; all items in my care covered under it except separately billed items (doctor time; some imaging)

Bottom line, if you feel hospitals charge correctly then it's unlikely price is of a concern to you.

Or I'm a realist and realize that some items are expensive so that other items (like serious care) aren't? Or that people without insurance (like those your links are talking about) don't have insurance, and are screwed by the system?

And PS: I am a vet. I don't know about others but I am happy with the care I get. If I had to get the same tests done in the civ market I would have been fcuked.
But to each his own.

My brother's care over the last 3 months easily exceeds $1M. (2 major surgeries; a week in the ER; another 2 weeks in a cardiac step-down unit; 5 different doctors; PT; OT; SLP) - he's footing... well; it's around $5-10k.

My stress test, c-MRI, and holter monitor cost me $30 -- my office visit co-pay.

 

[snuggles]

We wouldn't need to debate this if the INADEQUATE so called president would have listened to the majority.

 

[Strings]

This is likely the only provision of the health care act that will be deemed unconstitutional, the rest of it will remain on the books.

Actually, from what I've been reading, there is no severability clause: if part is struck down, the entire thing is...

 

[mike114]

Actually, from what I've been reading, there is no severability clause: if part is struck down, the entire thing is...

Not that I don't believe you, because I'm hoping you are 100% correct, but do you have any links expressing that opinion?

My thought is that Justice Kennedy will not have the courage to take a stand against what has become the twisting and contorting of the commerce clause.

 

[Strings]

No links, unfortunately: to brain fried and tired to utilize my Google-fu.

But that was one of the points I remember reading: that they had forgotten to include that lil' thing, which could result in bad things for the bill as a whole...

 

[copestag]

he is correct......... it has been widely reported by many news outlets for many months now that there is no severability clause........ however...... scotus has ruled against provisions in other laws that do not contain the clause and left the remainder of the law intact...... they have cited that there is implied severability.....stating that the intent of the law doesnt revolve around a single provision...... and that the law can function legally without that single provision

IMO if they find the mandate unconstitutional (which only a complete idiot would think otherwise) then it wont effect the remainder of the law..... and its not really a valid argument to say that the law is unfeasable without this provision since the law is unfeasable even with the provision

a thought had occurred to me though.... just that dark conspiracy theorist part of me that everyone has lurking somewhere......

perhaps this was the behind closed doors intent all along..... write a law that hinges on an illegal mandate..... knowing that mandate will be stricken down...... and knowing that without the mandate the rest of the law will quickly crush the private sector insurance system...... then swooping in through the ruins and creating what they wanted all along..... govt healthcare for everyone to save the day

 

[Strings]

That theory just NOW came to mind? Copestag, you're WAY behind the times: most people got THAT right after the bill was read!

 

[dark4181]

This is likely the only provision of the health care act that will be deemed unconstitutional, the rest of it will remain on the books. The problem is that without the mandate to carry insurance, the law is even more destructive than it was with it.

For example, Insurance companies will still be prevented from denying someone coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This means that many people will only get insurance when they get sick. If enough people only get insurance when they get cancer, then that is going to drive the cost of insurance WAY up for those who have continual coverage (say employer funded health plans).

It's going to be a real nightmare. The law should never have been built around this requirement. Period.

Unless the plan from the beginning was to let the insurance companies do exactly what you said, so that the gov't can stand up and say "Hey, look at these greedy insurance companies, charging so much. We HAVE to have government provided health insurance to check this blatant greed!"

Just sayin

*edit: Copestag beat me to it, above. lol

 

[Bob Maxey]

That theory just NOW came to mind? Copestag, you're WAY behind the times: most people got THAT right after the bill was read!

Clarify please . . . who read the bill? It was more than 2,000 pages long and by their own various admissions, those that voted yes did not read the bill.

Clarification please.

Bob Maxey

 

[Strings]

I was being a smart-ass...

 

[AndyLL]

Actually, from what I've been reading, there is no severability clause: if part is struck down, the entire thing is...

The judge himself rules that only this part of the bill was struck down.

The HCB is a series of independant pieces... very few of them interconnect.

This piece did not effect either funding for the HCB nor the regulations imposed on insurance companies.

This was a bone tossed to insurance companies to try to gain their support.

 

[AndyLL]

Clarify please . . . who read the bill? It was more than 2,000 pages long and by their own various admissions, those that voted yes did not read the bill.

Clarification please.

Bob Maxey

The individual pieces of the bill were read and debated for over a year.

Committees worked on piecing the bill together for over a year.

The final bill that was passed was available for over 2 months between when the senate 1st passed it to when the house passed it.

Senators and Congressman have staffs to keep track of changes and amendments of bills.

If the GOP congressman and their staffs are not able to do the work we pay them to do then they need get a different job.

 

[hakr100]

The individual pieces of the bill were read and debated for over a year.

Committees worked on piecing the bill together for over a year.

The final bill that was passed was available for over 2 months between when the senate 1st passed it to when the house passed it.

Senators and Congressman have staffs to keep track of changes and amendments of bills.

If the GOP congressman and their staffs are not able to do the work we pay them to do then they need get a different job.

Alaska needs more caribou killers!

 

[Bob Maxey]

The individual pieces of the bill were read and debated for over a year.

Committees worked on piecing the bill together for over a year.

The final bill that was passed was available for over 2 months between when the senate 1st passed it to when the house passed it.

Senators and Congressman have staffs to keep track of changes and amendments of bills.

If the GOP congressman and their staffs are not able to do the work we pay them to do then they need get a different job.

A different job, yes, I agree. Just as long as we do not trade one incompetent for another.

And again, those that voted for it did not read it. Reason enough not to vote on any bill. Nancy Pelosi said, "We need to pass the health care bill before we will know what's in it." Or some such verbiage.

The people that voted yes did not write it for the most part. As for staffers, I met one gem a few months ago. She was not aware of any health care bill being passed yet. What she sent me was a 25 page document containing parts of the bill and she got the bill number wrong.

Staffers do work hard, but you take a chance whenever you deal with many of them. Trust but verify.

It is unconstitutional which is reason enough NOT to vote for it. If any part of any bill is unconstitutional, no way it should be voted for. Or against, by the way.

Obama promised us it would be online for all to see. Another fib. It was not made readily available because (in my opinion) if we got a look at the thing, we would raise holy hell about the scary parts buried in the legal speak. I have a copy of the bill but I do not want to spend hours printing it out, the cost of the ink cartridges, or purchase 4-1/2 reams of bond.

Next time you purchase paper, stack 4 reams of stock and consider that is what it would take to print the damm thing out. It is a huge and complicated document that defies comprehension.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Alaska needs more caribou killers!

If the population grows and becomes unmanageable, yup, bang, bang and dinner is served.

Bob Maxey

 

[AndyLL]

And again, those that voted for it did not read it. Reason enough not to vote on any bill. Nancy Pelosi said, "We need to pass the health care bill before we will know what's in it." Or some such verbiage.

Bob Maxey

That comment was taken out of context and you're just playing politics like the politicians do when repeating it.

Congress people rely on the committees and staffers to do the bulk of the work on bills.

Unknown items getting slipped in before votes has happened but that is not the case here.

Once it was out of committe it was not hard to keep track of what was in/out of the bill... and that includes the public.

It is unconstitutional which is reason enough NOT to vote for it. If any part of any bill is unconstitutional, no way it should be voted for. Or against, by the way.

Only the SC can rule it unconstitutional and there is only one small part that is in question.

Obama promised us it would be online for all to see. Another fib. It was not made readily available because (in my opinion) if we got a look at the thing, we would raise holy hell about the scary parts buried in the legal speak. I have a copy of the bill but I do not want to spend hours printing it out, the cost of the ink cartridges, or purchase 4-1/2 reams of bond.

The bulk of the bill was available from November when the senate passed it to March/April when the house passed it.

4 months isn't enough for you?

The reconcilliation piece was small enough that anyone could follow it.

Next time you purchase paper, stack 4 reams of stock and consider that is what it would take to print the damm thing out. It is a huge and complicated document that defies comprehension.

All bills are complicated because they tned to amend past legislation and have to be specific.

Complicated projects have complicated and large documentation.

 

[mike114]

Only the SC can rule it unconstitutional and there is only one small part that is in question.

That's not correct. We have 3 equal branches of gov't. It's just that the legislature and the executive rarely have the spine to challenge the Supreme Court.

 

[EarlyMon]

In the earliest days of the republic, the idea was for checks and balances in government - but NOT equal branches.

Congress specifically made the president come to them to account for the state of the union, as a servant, so as to never believe his authority extended above that of the people's representatives - lest he presume the airs of a king.

Congress may impeach presidents and SC justices, and must approve SC justice nominations.

Today, congress hides behind the political skirts of the president and "his" SC choices - and the recent presidents have been all too egotistically happy to go along with the program.

But - they were never designed to be equal branches.

Today, presidential elections have all the earmarks of electing a king. We blame the president's choices (past and present) for SC justices saying this or that about abortion or anything else.

In truth, most presidential-election hot buttons would vaporize if congressional will existed to craft clear, constitutional laws in the problem areas.

Because doing so would alienate too large of the voting population for either party, they all play this shell game.

 

[byteware]

Only the SC can rule it unconstitutional and there is only one small part that is in question.

Actually, any court can rule it unconstitutional.

Then the government will appeal it and each successive court will either refuse to hear the case (letting the lower courts ruling stand), hear the case and uphold the lower courts ruling, or overrule the lower court.

Now it is true that the Supreme court is the FINAL word on whether something is constitutional, but they are far from the only entity that can rule it unconstitutional.

Just putting my .02 in for accuracy.

 

[AndyLL]

Actually, any court can rule it unconstitutional.

Federal Court.

Then the government will appeal it and each successive court will either refuse to hear the case (letting the lower courts ruling stand), hear the case and uphold the lower courts ruling, or overrule the lower court.

There are conflicting rulings by by the lower courts.

2 have ruled it constitutional and 1 unconstitutional.

 

[byteware]

Federal Court.

Actually, state courts also rule on the constitutionality of laws, and actions, "under their jurisdiction".

There are conflicting rulings by by the lower courts.

2 have ruled it constitutional and 1 unconstitutional.

Never said otherwise, I was simply illustrating the path that these rulings take on their way to the Supreme Court.

Edited to add: and the fact that there is not consensus, doesn't change the fact that the ruling will follow the path I described.