Thread: Would SCOTUS overturning part or all of ACA/'Obamacare' really be a WIN for Dems???

Serious question...

I see all the Repliconserviteapartiers here and in the media jumping for joy that observers are suspecting an eventual 5-4 partisan Supreme Court decision declaring part or all of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. But... now both Left and Right pundits have wondered if instead it would be a long term win for Dems. Think about it... the number of uninsured keep going up, health care costs keep rising; blame the Republicans for pushing to overturn the only shot we had to reign in costs. Right?


James Carville; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74577.html

Overturning President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law would be a political boost for Democrats, veteran Democratic strategist James Carville said Tuesday.

'I think that this will be the best thing that ever happen to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably,' Carville told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer of a possible Supreme Court decision to strike down the law. 'I honestly believe this, this is not spin.'

'You know what the Democrats are going to say - and it is completely justified: 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority,'Carville added. 'The public has these guys figured out. Our polls show that half think this whole thing is political.'

Just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better to me than overturning this thing 5-4 and then the Republican Party will own the health care system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin,' Carville said.

Joe Scarborough; http://thehill.com/video/policy-area...for-democrats-

MSNBC morning show host Joe Scarborough predicted Wednesday that if the Supreme Court overturns President Obama's signature healthcare law, it will be a 'big win' politically for Democrats.

I personally believe politically that helps Democrats … a lot because I'd rather run against a negative, I'd rather run against the extremist right-wing Roberts court,' said Scarborough on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' Wednesday.

The former Republican Florida congressman argued that if the justices reject the Obama administration's healthcare legislation it will give Democrats valuable talking points in upcoming elections.

He told viewers that Democrats would be able to blame the lack of healthcare access in the United States on the Supreme Court, as well as position themselves against an extremist court.

WTF... why won't this auto parse quotes thing turn off? Arrgghhhh!

edit; Think I have it figured out?

Looks like the law is toast.

Even the Dems know it.

The spin is SHAMELESS!!! BIG WIN for Dems!!

Bwwaaaaahhhhhh

I can see the Obama ad now.

Hey folks, the only thing I accomplished was declared unconstitutional.

That's not FAIR!!!!

I want another chaaaaannnnnnnccccce. Whaaaaah

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,2058481.story
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

They near as said yesterday that mandated single payer could be constitutional......

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

They near as said yesterday that mandated single payer could be constitutional......

If they just would have made healthcatre "free" and taxed the piss out of everyone, they would have been fine.

But that would have never passed because we want that EVEN LESS than the joke we had cramed down our throats.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

They near as said yesterday that mandated single payer could be constitutional......

So if this is overturned 5-4 and the public blames the GOP for escalating healthcare costs, what would their solution be? What other options are there besides single payer or the insurance mandate? The GOP can't politically increase taxes to pay for a single payer system, nor can they impose a single payer system and thus impact the insurance companies that buy their allegiance...so, assuming the status quo is not sustainable, what is the solution from the GOP? In the long run it might be a win for the democrats politically if this is overturned, but for the public it would suck. Guess that doesn't really matter to the GOP tho...

Did you see the latest 1984 style doublespeak coming from the White House?

It's not the "Individual Mandate" anymore - It's the "Personal Responsibility Clause"

I'm sure the media will help them change the meaning of another conservative term into something that should be forced on people by Big Brother.

SICK!

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

So if this is overturned 5-4 and the public blames the GOP for escalating healthcare costs, what would their solution be? What other options are there besides single payer or the insurance mandate? The GOP can't politically increase taxes to pay for a single payer system, nor can they impose a single payer system and thus impact the insurance companies that buy their allegiance...so, assuming the status quo is not sustainable, what is the solution from the GOP? In the long run it might be a win for the democrats politically if this is overturned, but for the public it would suck. Guess that doesn't really matter to the GOP tho...

Google it Adolf.....

Hint: It starts with "Free Market".

You mean republitard judicial activism will probably create the single payer healthcare we always really wanted/needed.

That'd be fucking awesome.

Ah healthcare... what a cluster fuck... the ACA is a cluster fuck. The previous system was a cluster fuck.

Fuck. As usual the only winners will be the insurance companies, the lobbyists,m and the lawyers.

Yes and it would pretty much guarantee national health care.

The current system will collapse pretty quickly because its in no way shape or form sustainable. The current unfunded liability for Medicare is like 32 trillion dollars. I actually think this was part of the plan all along...

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Did you see the latest 1984 style doublespeak coming from the White House?

It's not the "Individual Mandate" anymore - It's the "Personal Responsibility Clause"

I'm sure the media will help them change the meaning of another conservative term into something that should be forced on people by Big Brother.

That's how the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich once framed it.

Originally Posted by ArmadaBC

Yes and it would pretty much guarantee national health care.

The current system will collapse pretty quickly because its in no way shape or form sustainable. The current unfunded liability for Medicare is like 32 trillion dollars. I actually think this was part of the plan all along...

That's the thing. I suppose a do nothing attitude from the Obama Administration would've had the same net result...the system colapses and single payer fires up in its place. This always seemed like a last ditch effort to keep the current system going. Instead the GOP will have egg on their face for submarining the only option left outside of a single payer system. That or we overturn that law Reagan signed into law that requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

overturn that law Reagan signed into law

Why do you hate America?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I suppose a do nothing attitude from the Obama Administration would've had the same net result...the system colapses and single payer fires up in its place.

If a price can't go up forever, it won't. So I don't see a collapse, as such, just an ever smaller percentage of Americans with health insurance. At some point people will say enough is enough so that's one kind of collapse. In the meantime, a majority of Americans oppose the individual mandate but something like 85% say that insurance companies should ignore pre-existing conditions. Because it's difficult to have one without the other, it's hard to place all the blame with politicians since the public at large has a conflicting agenda.

Originally Posted by Triage

If a price can't go up forever, it won't. So I don't see a collapse, as such, just an ever smaller percentage of Americans with health insurance. At some point people will say enough is enough so that's one kind of collapse.

Why don't you see insurance policies that the market can bear?

Maybe like car insurance that just covers crashes but not car washes and routine maintenance like health insurance does?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Why don't you see insurance policies that the market can bear?

Maybe like car insurance that just covers crashes but not car washes and routine maintenance like health insurance does?

Again you demonstrate your absolute and complete disconnect with logic and reality.

By your way of thinking it is more efficient to cover terminal illness rather than covering the preventive health care that would keep a lot of health care cheap and affordable.

You would rather pay to administer to a dying person for hundreds of thousands of dollars than spend a thousand dollars to keep them from getting sick in the first place.


So fucking stupid even you don't grasp how dumb you really are.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Why don't you see insurance policies that the market can bear?

Maybe like car insurance that just covers crashes but not car washes and routine maintenance like health insurance does?

Who says eliminating preventative care would make a big cost difference? It would certainly make some difference because people are poor judges of their health care needs and will sometimes over consume but the main reason for that is employer provided health care tends to hide the true costs due to tax policy that distorts the market. Diminish the primary role employer provided health care plays and you'll start to see a less distorted market place. Portable health insurance is not such a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Triage

Who says eliminating preventative care would make a big cost difference? It would certainly make some difference because people are poor judges of their health care needs and will sometimes over consume but the main reason for that is employer provided health care tends to hide the true costs due to tax policy that distorts the market. Diminish the primary role employer provided health care plays and you'll start to see a less distorted market place. Portable health insurance is not such a bad thing.

Provided that everyone kicks into the system and insureds are pooled and community rated. If people hate the mandate, then we need to have a system that allows individuals to opt out and a means of identifying them instantaneously so when they call 911 because of severe chest pains, the dispatcher can decline sending the EMT wagon unless they have an openended credit card and prepay. If they show up at the ER, they need to have that credit card in hand to cover the costs. Or a big sack of cash to cover the treatment.

Originally Posted by Triage

Who says eliminating preventative care would make a big cost difference? It would certainly make some difference because people are poor judges of their health care needs and will sometimes over consume but the main reason for that is employer provided health care tends to hide the true costs due to tax policy that distorts the market. Diminish the primary role employer provided health care plays and you'll start to see a less distorted market place. Portable health insurance is not such a bad thing.

Does anyone really think that getting rid of preventative care would lower healthcare costs? I guess instead of getting help for treatable diseases people would just die. We would need to do away with Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and hospitals would need to be ready to deny healthcare for dying patients and those using the emergency room for all healthcare...or perhaps a different law could be written outlawing healthcare providers from passing along those costs to patients with insurance? The effect may be the same...however, conscientious folks might have a hard time complying with such laws.

Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.”

Huh?

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

Provided that everyone kicks into the system and insureds are pooled and community rated. If people hate the mandate, then we need to have a system that allows individuals to opt out and a means of identifying them instantaneously so when they call 911 because of severe chest pains, the dispatcher can decline sending the EMT wagon unless they have an openended credit card and prepay. If they show up at the ER, they need to have that credit card in hand to cover the costs. Or a big sack of cash to cover the treatment.

Other countries let people opt out by allowing them to sign away their coverage for an extended period (3-5 yrs) and then they are only permitted to re-enrole within a fixed window. I'm not sure how they handle emergencies. The Economist's take on the mandate:

Whether or not you think they're a good idea, individual mandates are clearly a rational-seeming way to solve problems in the health-insurance market, rational enough that they appealed to the Heritage Foundation, Republicans in Congress, Mitt Romney and so on, and eventually (and reluctantly) to Democrats. But I can't think of any other area of the economy or society where having the federal government order every citizen to buy a good from a private provider seems like a reasonable solution to a problem, or has seemed so to anyone else, Democrats, Republicans, or what have you.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Does anyone really think that getting rid of preventative care would lower healthcare costs? I guess instead of getting help for treatable diseases people would just die. We would need to do away with Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and hospitals would need to be ready to deny healthcare for dying patients and those using the emergency room for all healthcare...or perhaps a different law could be written outlawing healthcare providers from passing along those costs to patients with insurance? The effect may be the same...however, conscientious folks might have a hard time complying with such laws.

I've seen studies showing some types of preventative care save money while others end up costing money. In response to DbT's point, I've sat in several meetings where we've offered employees the option of less coverage, higher co-pays along with more take home pay and while younger single people are intrigued by the idea, older workers and people with families want the best coverage possible. All of which tracks with how people feel about health insurance in general. Now, we no longer bother asking, we just try to match or do slightly better than the industry standard.


No matter what, Americans won't stand for people dying on the streets because they were turned away but they don't like the mandate either. There are conservatives making tangential arguments about the insurance industry :

The argument for having the Court kill the whole thing is more pragmatic than legal, I think — no one wants to see insurers go out of business because Congress ends up gridlocked and paralyzed on yet another issue. But don’t forget (a) the insurance industry has a lot of political muscle and they’ll bring the full force of it to bear on incumbent congressmen to find a solution and (b) given that we’re all going to have to put on our big-boy pants soon to reform Medicare, maybe a crisis now will be a wake-up call in forcing Congress to start thinking big. Surely they wouldn’t sit idly by while America’s health insurance industry disintegrated around them. [...] How can the mandate be unconstitutional when a far more aggressive power grab like single payer, i.e. “Medicare for all,” probably wouldn’t be?

Originally Posted by Triage

Who says eliminating preventative care would make a big cost difference? It would certainly make some difference because people are poor judges of their health care needs and will sometimes over consume but the main reason for that is employer provided health care tends to hide the true costs due to tax policy that distorts the market. Diminish the primary role employer provided health care plays and you'll start to see a less distorted market place. Portable health insurance is not such a bad thing.

So more market forces? Looky there, we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

If people hate the mandate, then we need to have a system that allows individuals to opt out and a means of identifying them instantaneously so when they call 911 because of severe chest pains, the dispatcher can decline sending the EMT wagon unless they have an openended credit card and prepay. If they show up at the ER, they need to have that credit card in hand to cover the costs. Or a big sack of cash to cover the treatment.

Exactly. Or whatever system individual states would like to set up for their citizens. Perhaps a catistrophic care policy with a big fucking co-pay. Or a medical facility willing to bill the customer or one that is privately funded by charity to cover costs by it's own free will?

There are a million answers. Let the states and the market sort it out.

One thing that needs to go away are government mandates on what has to be covered. If someone doesn't want to buy a policy that pays for sex change operations or HIV treatment, they shouldn't have to.

But remember, life isn't fair and everyone dies. We don't have to bankrupt the nation to make everything "fair".

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

There are a million answers. Let the states and the market sort it out.
.

The market already has an "answer".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...red17_ST_N.htm

Number of uninsured Americans rises to 50.7 million"

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...alth-coverage/

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are
associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published
online today by the American Journal
of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an
estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance,
found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of
death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess
death rate found in 1993.