Should the Supreme Court strike down the healthcare law?

[Matthitjah]

While we're busy bothering over healthcare Obama is really messing freedom over...

http://www.democracy...eaked_trade_doc

You're missing the point. Obamacare is part of the whole framework to alleviate you of your Freedom.

[AlexanderJ]

While we're busy bothering over healthcare Obama is really messing freedom over...

http://www.democracy...eaked_trade_doc

You're missing the point. Obamacare is part of the whole framework to alleviate you of your Freedom.

Freedom is such a burden...right?

[ByFaithAlone]

I am not a huge fan of the healthcare law but to be fair, he does have reasonable precedence and constitutional arguments so I am going to look at the constitutionality argument from Obama's perspective.

Obama defends his position by using the interstate commerce clause which allows Congress to "regulate not only obvious things, such as products sold across state lines, but activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, even if the activities themselves are local and not commercial" (Nathan Cortez, Law Professor, SMU). The government has already used this clause in combination with the general welfare clause to regulate healthcare in at least one industry. In 1790, Congress passed a law that required all merchant shipping companies to provide care for their employees and fined anyone who did not agree to the insurance.

Some may argue the the decision to go uninsured is an inaction rather than an action but in the healthcare industry the choice to remain uninsured is an action as the uninsured are choosing to (a) pay out of pocket or (b) not pay at all.

A case that I am sure the Obama administration used to make their point under precedence was the 2005 case Gonzalez v. Raich in which the High Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act applied to local, non-economic and non criminal activities (i.e. medical marijuana). They decided that the interstate commerce clause allowed this act to apply as it would allow the federal government to prevent abuses in the system. Obama will most likely argue that the healthcare law is analogous. He will argue that healthcare (a local non-economic, non-criminal activity) falls under the interstate commerce clause (as it can substantial affect the transport of capita between states) and to prevent abuses (of both inaction, private companies charging excessive amounts, etc) the govt. must step in.

Ultimately, everyone consumes healthcare during their lives. We have three options. Either we pay for it ahead of consuming it (insurance), we pay for it after receiving it or we don't pay for it at all. The mandate proposed in the Affordable Care Act discourages the last two options which are inefficient (not everyone pays) and expensive (as doctors still have to treat those who don't pay and those that do are paying the full amount at one time rather than smaller insurance premiums and those without coverage raise the rates and taxes for everyone else).

Again, not a huge fan of the bill law but this is one of the constitutional arguments that can be presented. I really don't mind the idea of government regulated healthcare as long as we can pay for it. I would like to see larger cuts in military spending and higher but more efficient (i.e. no exemptions, etc) taxes.

[SavedByGrace1980]

Our current occupant of the White House seeks to advance his agenda by division - race, class, religion - whatever it takes.

As shown by the (sometimes heated) posts on this thread - he has succeeded. Healthcare is obviously a serious, emotional issue. Christians and others have strong opinions on all sides of the issue. So - whatever else comes of "Obamacare", the president will have succeeded in dividing the country even further along class lines.

Tomorrow we will get the decision from our modern day "Mount Olympus" (a.k.a. The Supreme Court) as to whether or not this monstrosity is Constitutional. If the decision is in the affirmative, it will no more "solve" the issue of healthcare than the infamous Roe V. Wade decision "solved" the issue of abortion.

On the flip side, if all or parts of Obamacare is declared unConstitutional, the problems it attempted to address will still exist.

So perhaps a little review is in order.

It could be said that the healthcare system in this country is a victim of its own success. Incredible strides have been made in recent decades - both in the diagnostic technology available and the level of skill of healthcare providers.

All this success, however, has come with a price. Billions of research and development dollars are required to advance medical technology. We see the end result - a CAT Scanner, for instance - but we don't generally stop to think about all that went into producing it.

Companies that manufacture medical devices ultimately must recoup their costs. Unlike cell phone or HD television manufacturers , whose R&D costs can be recovered over a huge market, medical equipment has a relatively small, limited market. Simple math then dictates that the price of medical equipment is typically going to be exorbitantly high.

The same can be said for pharmaceutical companies. It is incredibly expensive to bring a new drug to market. Most drugs in development never make it for one reason or another. Therefore, for a pharmaceutical company to stay in business it must charge seemingly exorbitant prices for the drugs it does sell.

Now we may begin to at least see the reasoning behind the horror stories we hear of people in the hospital being charged 15 dollars for a basic aspirin.

And then you have the high salaries of those in the healthcare industry. But again, given the huge commitment of time and money it takes for someone to successfully become a doctor, it is not unreasonable for them to expect a high salary as a result.

So hopefully I have thus far established two things: The US medical system is excellent in the QUALITY it provides, but at the same time it is incredibly (but necessarily) expensive.

Here's where the problem comes in. Try as it might, Congress (or any legislative body) CANNOT repeal the law of supply and demand. Oh it can try - and we see things like Obamacare as a result.

But supply and demand will have the last word. In this case, you have a limited "supply" (The US healthcare system) and a huge "demand" (everyone who is covered under health insurance and/or can pay their own expenses). Now Obama is proposing INCREASING demand (to every US citizen and illegal alien) WITHOUT addressing the supply.

In fairness, he does propose to increase the revenue going into the system. In this case, it's called the individual mandate.

But if we're mandated to PURCHASE something, that goes against our traditions if not our Constitution. And if, instead, taxes are raised to cover the costs - that will prove to be highly unpopular to a citizenry who already feels overtaxed.

And an additional fact is this: No matter how much or in what way revenue is raised, it will prove not to be enough.

The simple fact is - the quality of our excellent healthcare system is going to suffer. It is going to happen - and it's not due to evil doctors, drug companies or evil republicans.

Supply and Demand. PERIOD. We will see longer waits at the doctors office. Will will see longer waits for diagnostic procedures like CAT scans. We will see healthcare rationed and in some cases denied.

It can be no other way. When you have shortages, you have rationing (see gasoline rationing in WWII)

Apparently the opinion that "we cannot sustain the system as is" seems to be reaching critical mass. That's fine, and it may in fact be accurate.

I just hope those that hold that opinion really understand that "fixing" that problem is going to create a truckload of other problems.

Blessings!

-Ed

[ByFaithAlone]

As shown by the (sometimes heated) posts on this thread - he has succeeded. Healthcare is obviously a serious, emotional issue. Christians and others have strong opinions on all sides of the issue. So - whatever else comes of "Obamacare", the president will have succeeded in dividing the country even further along class lines.

Why do you define strong opinions from various sorts of people as class division. I personally have private healthcare and like it a lot and yet I am not completely opposed to the idea of governmental healthcare as long as we vote for it and can pay for it. I see it more as differences in political thought rather than differences in class. I find the claim that it relates to class unwarranted.

It could be said that the healthcare system in this country is a victim of its own success. Incredible strides have been made in recent decades - both in the diagnostic technology available and the level of skill of healthcare providers....So hopefully I have thus far established two things: The US medical system is excellent in the QUALITY it provides, but at the same time it is incredibly (but necessarily) expensive.

I agree with all of this about the causes of expenses, etc.

Here's where the problem comes in. Try as it might, Congress (or any legislative body) CANNOT repeal the law of supply and demand. Oh it can try - and we see things like Obamacare as a result.

But supply and demand will have the last word. In this case, you have a limited "supply" (The US healthcare system) and a huge "demand" (everyone who is covered under health insurance and/or can paytheir own expenses). Now Obama is proposing INCREASING demand (to every US citizen and illegal alien) WITHOUT addressing the supply.

In fairness, he does propose to increase the revenue going into the system. In this case, it's called the individual mandate.

But if we're mandated to PURCHASE something, that goes against our traditions if not our Constitution. And if, instead, taxes are raised to cover the costs - that will prove to be highly unpopular to a citizenry who already feels overtaxed.

Ah... here I disagree with you. Obama is not necessarily increasing demand. The demand for healthcare already exists. People are automatically given healthcare in the status quo. Unfortunately, the person with no healthcare general receives this care in the emergency room where it is illegal to turn them away even if they cannot pay. We are merely providing for the insurance that makes the system more efficient. The demand may slightly increase as those with low incomes may have more frequent checkups but other than that, demand will stay relatively constant.

Taxes will have to be raised and cuts will have to be made to military spending. If we remove the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% proposed for years 2013-2021, we could add $2.02 trillion to the economy. That would cover most of the $2.6 trillion of the current estimate for the healthcare bill. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provides an additional $121 billion a year or $968 billion over the years 2013-2021. That doesn't even include cuts to military spending or other new taxes. We could pay for this law if we wanted to.

[other one]

Yeah, I am serious. Obamacare is too expensive for this country to support. It has increased the bureaucracy in our government expotentially and we don't have the money for it. It is a major finacial drain that we cannot afford. If we keep spending, spending spending, we will go complete broke. We don't have enough doctors and we can't afford to give free health care. It is unconstitutional to force us to buy health care, to boot.

If you truly love America, you can't support a system that circumvents what makes this country the greatest in the world. Obamacare is unsustainable and it is unAmerican. It is the product of a socialist mentality, not a freedom loving mentality.

If you like it so much, go live in France or go join Burning Ember up in Canada. But keep your hands off of the Constitution.

Well interestingly the mandate to insurance before Obamacare was put on the books was backed by several Conservative think tanks (Heritage Foundation) and I remember several Republican politicians agreeing that it was a good idea. So i don't think you can really call it a product of socialist mentality.

Wrong, the mandate proposed by the Republicans had nothing whatsoever to do with the one Obamacare implemented. Remember I provided you with those facts a few months back. It's the same old tired argument though.

And I disagreed with you a few months back and you're right it is the same old argument.

[other one]

While we're busy bothering over healthcare Obama is really messing freedom over...

http://www.democracy...eaked_trade_doc

You're missing the point. Obamacare is part of the whole framework to alleviate you of your Freedom.

i don't think that's true either Dave. It's a not so great attempt to bolster up a failing system, but it's something..... and when you guys dump it and the system fails and massive hospital closings occurr I guess you'll still have your freedoms...... you will also be free to die over the dumbest things. I have a friend who lost his dad over hitting his thumb with a hammer. Blood poisoning set in and it killed him because he didn't have access to antibiotics.

and your standing dogmatically for freedoms are going to drive us right back to that time period unless you have a lot of money to pay cash for treatment, because few of us will be able to afford insurance. Our premiums nearly doubled last year from the pre existing conditions part of the bill, and if we do away with the mandate for everyone to have insurance, they will just keep going up as people get sick and force the insurance companies to sell them a policy. Insurance doesn't work that way.

And I'm tired of paying for those who "WONT" get insruance. I'd rather help those who can't afford it by helping with their premiums...... then everyone can go to the ER when they need to and it won't take me two hours to see a doctor and won't cost someone a thousand when those who won't or can't pay go in for the flu.

and I would really ask why we call this obamacare, for this bill didn't give Obama anything near what he wanted in a health care bill.

[SavedByGrace1980]

As shown by the (sometimes heated) posts on this thread - he has succeeded. Healthcare is obviously a serious, emotional issue. Christians and others have strong opinions on all sides of the issue. So - whatever else comes of "Obamacare", the president will have succeeded in dividing the country even further along class lines.

Why do you define strong opinions from various sorts of people as class division. I personally have private healthcare and like it a lot and yet I am not completely opposed to the idea of governmental healthcare as long as we vote for it and can pay for it. I see it more as differences in political thought rather than differences in class. I find the claim that it relates to class unwarranted.

I'm glad you like your private healthcare. I like mine, too. Yet I am opposed (for a myriad of reasons which I've clearly stated previously) to the idea of government run healthcare. Go figure. . . .

I'll grant you that differences in political thought play a big part in this controversy. I am mostly libertarian in my political beliefs; I suspect yours are statist. (Please don't take offense. I use the term STATIST not as a pejorative, but as a replacement for the term liberal. When I think of a liberal, I think of a classic liberal like Thomas Jefferson. I don't see modern day democrats as Jeffersonian)

But if you don't see the class warfare argument in play here then you're just not looking. Everything Barack Milhouse Obama DOES is related to class.

If you don't see that, then it's because you choose not to.

Here's where the problem comes in. Try as it might, Congress (or any legislative body) CANNOT repeal the law of supply and demand. Oh it can try - and we see things like Obamacare as a result.

But supply and demand will have the last word. In this case, you have a limited "supply" (The US healthcare system) and a huge "demand" (everyone who is covered under health insurance and/or can paytheir own expenses). Now Obama is proposing INCREASING demand (to every US citizen and illegal alien) WITHOUT addressing the supply.

In fairness, he does propose to increase the revenue going into the system. In this case, it's called the individual mandate.

But if we're mandated to PURCHASE something, that goes against our traditions if not our Constitution. And if, instead, taxes are raised to cover the costs - that will prove to be highly unpopular to a citizenry who already feels overtaxed.

Ah... here I disagree with you. Obama is not necessarily increasing demand. The demand for healthcare already exists. People are automatically given healthcare in the status quo. Unfortunately, the person with no healthcare general receives this care in the emergency room where it is illegal to turn them away even if they cannot pay. We are merely providing for the insurance that makes the system more efficient. The demand may slightly increase as those with low incomes may have more frequent checkups but other than that, demand will stay relatively constant.

Depending on the political point of view of the source, we have between 20 million and 50 million uninsured in this country. Split down the middle, that's 35 million.

Can you say with a straight face that increasing the rolls by 35 million WILL NOT increase demand - even slightly - to an already overburdened system?

Taxes will have to be raised and cuts will have to be made to military spending. If we remove the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% proposed for years 2013-2021, we could add $2.02 trillion to the economy. That would cover most of the $2.6 trillion of the current estimate for the healthcare bill.

With all due respect, I get soooooo tired of this argument I could vomit. I'll tell you what - let's just confiscate ALLLLLL the money the so-called rich have. You know what - that will run our government for what - a week? Then what?

You've demonstrated why this problem is not likely to ever get solved, and it's spelled p-a-r-t-i-s-a-n-s-h-i-p.

(and yes, it exists on both sides. *****sigh********)

Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provides an additional $121 billion a year or $968 billion over the years 2013-2021. That doesn't even include cuts to military spending or other new taxes. We could pay for this law if we wanted to.

As one who is libertarian in his political beliefs, I agree with you that the US shouldn't be fighting wars all over the globe and playing world policeman.

Your argument would be better served if you simply said "let's return to Constitutional government". But then that wouldn't include providing healthcare, would it?

Blessings!

-Ed

[ByFaithAlone]

Why do you define strong opinions from various sorts of people as class division? I personally have private healthcare and like it a lot and yet I am not completely opposed to the idea of governmental healthcare as long as we vote for it and can pay for it. I see it more as differences in political thought rather than differences in class. I find the claim that it relates to class unwarranted.

I'm glad you like your private healthcare. I like mine, too. Yet I am opposed (for a myriad of reasons which I've clearly stated previously) to the idea of government run healthcare. Go figure. . . .

I'll grant you that differences in political thought play a big part in this controversy. I am mostly libertarian in my political beliefs; I suspect yours are statist. (Please don't take offense. I use the term STATIST not as a pejorative, but as a replacement for the term liberal. When I think of a liberal, I think of a classic liberal like Thomas Jefferson. I don't see modern day democrats as Jeffersonian)

But if you don't see the class warfare argument in play here then you're just not looking. Everything Barack Milhouse Obama DOES is related to class.

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative in that I desire a balanced budget and massive budget cuts but socially liberal. I also really don't care what the country does financially as long as we can (a) pay for it and (b) vote for it. I don't know what exactly it would fall under in terms of the political spectrum so I'll just call it Matthewism lol. As to the class warfare issue, I would say that all politicians use classes and societal status in their campaigns (just look at all the adds run specifically for the middle class, low income, businessmen, etc.) However, I would also contend that healthcare reform is ultimately an issue that affects all classes and your opinion on it correlates more strongly to political thought than class.

Ah... here I disagree with you. Obama is not necessarily increasing demand. The demand for healthcare already exists. People are automatically given healthcare in the status quo. Unfortunately, the person with no healthcare general receives this care in the emergency room where it is illegal to turn them away even if they cannot pay. We are merely providing for the insurance that makes the system more efficient. The demand may slightly increase as those with low incomes may have more frequent checkups but other than that, demand will stay relatively constant.

Depending on the political point of view of the source, we have between 20 million and 50 million uninsured in this country. Split down the middle, that's 35 million.

Can you say with a straight face that increasing the rolls by 35 million WILL NOT increase demand - even slightly - to an already overburdened system?

As I said, these people already place a burden on the healthcare system (and some economists would argue a greater burden) as they rarely pay or go into debt due to payment for the healthcare that the doctors must legally provide them. I agree that they will increase demand slightly but I think the system will be more efficient in the end and can compensate. The great thing about supply and demand is that it goes to equilibrium so if we fix demand at a certain point, supply will increase as to meet the need.

Taxes will have to be raised and cuts will have to be made to military spending. If we remove the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% proposed for years 2013-2021, we could add $2.02 trillion to the economy. That would cover most of the $2.6 trillion of the current estimate for the healthcare bill.

With all due respect, I get soooooo tired of this argument I could vomit. I'll tell you what - let's just confiscate ALLLLLL the money the so-called rich have. You know what - that will run our government for what - a week? Then what?

You've demonstrated why this problem is not likely to ever get solved, and it's spelled p-a-r-t-i-s-a-n-s-h-i-p.

(and yes, it exists on both sides. *****sigh********)

I don't intend to confiscate money from all of the rich. Trust me, as an upper-middle class person I don't like seeing my taxes raised. However, I also recognize that the government needs more money and I would rather it be me then someone who has a low income. And the plan of ending the Bush era tax cuts for the top 5% would work for years (see the evidence I provided). It has worked before. We managed to raise taxes and cut spending under Clinton as to create a balanced budget. I think we could do it again. I call it compromise

Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provides an additional $121 billion a year or $968 billion over the years 2013-2021. That doesn't even include cuts to military spending or other new taxes. We could pay for this law if we wanted to.

As one who is libertarian in his political beliefs, I agree with you that the US shouldn't be fighting wars all over the globe and playing world policeman.

Glad we agree on something

[SavedByGrace1980]

Glad we agree on something

Thanks for a spirited discussion. Although our political points of view are different, I can say that you have presented yours well.

Let me just clarify a couple of things pertaining to my opinion of this issue:

One of the problems that has been mentioned is the fact that regardless of their ability to pay, everyone who shows up at a hospital emergency room receives medial treatment.

I don't have an exact dollar figure as to how much that costs the medical system - but whatever it is I'll agree it is a problem that should be addressed.

I suppose the question is: How best to address it?

Is there a "non-government" way to address it? Is there a way to address it that does not involve overhauling the entire medical system?

And then - as a corollary to those questions: Did I miss where Obama addressed that problem in particular? Did he seek out advice from non-partisan sources - or did he already have a pre-conceived "solution" to the problem?

Next, I want to comment on what you said about supply and demand. Although you and I agree that "supply and demand" eventually creates a level of equilibrium, I'm not sure we as a society are going to be comfortable where that level comes to rest.

Unlike the supply and demand - say - of personal computers or cellphones - which started out very expensive but became cheaper as supply eventually exceeded demand - I don't see that happening (at least in the near term) with healthcare.

The "supply" of healthcare - for the reasons I stated in my previous post - is going to remain limited.

And here's another difference: When someone cannot afford a computer or cell phone - he/she just does without. And no one takes pity.

But if someone cannot afford healthcare, are we prepared as a society to let them "do without?" I don't think so - and that's the crux of the problem.

I consider myself a good, taxpaying citizen of these United States. As such, I might grumble and complain - but if OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES respond to the demands of the population to deal with healthcare by doing something Constitutional like raising taxes - I will obviously comply.

I will complain louder, however, if they deal with the healthcare "crisis" by means of the individual mandate.

Regardless of what the ongoing Constitutional Convention (aka the Supreme Court) says - I believe it is unConstitutional.

And I will always believe that. (and that, and $2.75, will get me a cup of Coffee at Starbucks)

Blessings!

-Ed