Federal Judge: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Darwin]

The problem is not really that Obamacare is socialized medicine, it plainly is, but rather it's the idea that handing over control of the bulk of the health care system to manifold government bureaucracies will be more efficient or more able to control costs than the present patchwork setup. The evidence for this, to put it mildly, is unconvincing. We are bound to go from a de-facto rationing of care based on ability to pay to a de-jure system of rationing based on one's place in a queue. Furthermore the legislation creates many new agencies that will allegedly work together to make things run smoothly but the inevitable turf battles, melees really considering how many new agencies are being created, bode extremely ill for anything resembling efficiency or effective cost controls. Slowdowns, hangups, high-handedness, overload, politically motivated funding differences, and a host of problems naturally endemic to large bureaucratic enterprises are going to serve mainly as impediments to anything resembling smooth operation of the system and will provide endless lawsuit fodder for the legal profession. Perhaps it should have been called the "Attorney's Full Employment Act of 2009".

That last bit has already started obviously and will only get worse as the new legislation begins to plow headlong through each state's established medical care regimens. States very much like to protect what few pathetic remnants of sovereignty they still enjoy and every single one will find a host of issues that will need to be addressed by court decision as Obamacare is gradually rolled out in it's full grubby majesty. Folks who are hoping that big improvements will follow in the wake of O-care will find their expectations tangled in multiple heavy draperies of years or decades long legal battles. Layering a vast bureaucracy over the top of the existing chaotic medical system is a frightening thing to behold with every little decision held hostage to political infighting and/or the personal whims of every agency head and everyone who works for that agency. This is progress? The big mean old profit-hungry medical firms that allegedly have us in their evil power may raise the ire of the permanently indignant class but after a few years of governmental "improvement" we may be waxing nostalgic over how much more "accessible" things were back in the "good old days" before Obamacare.

[raptor]

Darwin, what do you propose as a solution? Clearly the free market is doing nothing right now to combat rising costs, and the vicious cycle of brand name drugs, high doctor salaries and profit making does not bode well for the average American. While I think the healthcare bill is poorly implemented due to the extreme number of compromises made, I do believe there needs to be reform beyond what the market can correct on its own.

[sgreger1]

You have to wonder how many of those people are covered under Medicaid. Those numbers look to good to be true.

From what I gather, the massachusettes health care system has been a big failure. Everyone is covered, but the care is horrible and the state is trying to reform it's systemt o move back closer to the system the rest of us have right now since their universal coverage isn't working. That's what the papers say anyways, I don't know anyone who lives there.


Do we have any snuson members from MA that oculd shine some light?

All i know is that Romney made the universal health care in MA and that it was a huge failure of some kind, yet they have now decided to use it on a national level. Last I heard it was bankrupting them, but I don't know all the details.

[sgreger1]

Darwin, what do you propose as a solution? Clearly the free market is doing nothing right now to combat rising costs, and the vicious cycle of brand name drugs, high doctor salaries and profit making does not bode well for the average American. While I think the healthcare bill is poorly implemented due to the extreme number of compromises made, I do believe there needs to be reform beyond what the market can correct on its own.

PRofitmaking is what makes us have the best doctors and the best medicine. It is necessary for progress. The problem is that we also have to cater to those who can't afford the best and brightest, but just need some basic medical care.



A big problem here is the illegal aliens. The free market can't work when you have an entire class of society that the government has allowed to occupy our land and obtain free medical care. Then, to make it worse, they are receiving free emergency room care, which is twice as expensive as going to the Dr. This puts a huge strain on our system. Then we have the other 10% of Americans who legitimately just odn't have insurance. They are also costing money.


The real question is: If 80-90% of American's already have insurance, should we wreck the entire system to get that last 10% signed up with insurance? Wouldn't it be smarter to make a better system for that 10%, than to change the entire system for everyone else? The problem here is that this health care reform bill will not change the raising costs of things. As long as we treat people for free (which will continue after Obamacare), the cost HAS TO BE PASSED ON TO SOMEONE, therefore costs will stay sky high.



I personally can't wait for this whole thing to kick off. It's going to be bad news for Obama because everyone who wasn't paying attention is going to be shouting "where is my free healthcare!" when really nothing has changed and there is no free healthcare, but rather you have a new bill to pay each month. How mad do you think people who opted out of insurance will be when they find out they will be penalized if they don't spend $600 a month? Oh the news is going to have a field day!

[snusgetter]

from what i gather, the massachusettes health care system has been a big failure. Everyone is covered, but the care is horrible and the state is trying to reform it's systemt o move back closer to the system the rest of us have right now since their universal coverage isn't working. That's what the papers say anyways, i don't know anyone who lives there.
do we have any snuson members from ma that oculd shine some light?
all i know is that romney made the universal health care in ma and that it was a huge failure of some kind, yet they have now decided to use it on a national level. Last i heard it was bankrupting them, but i don't know all the details.

nope...

Number of insured in Mass. rises to 98 percent

BOSTON—More than 98 percent of Massachusetts residents now have health insurance of some kind.

A report released Monday by Gov. Deval Patrick's administration found that 98.1 percent of state residents were covered during a survey between May and June.

That's up from 97.3 percent covered last year, and 93.6 percent in 2006, when former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the state's universal health care law.

Only about 120,000 people now lack either private or government-paid insurance in Massachusetts.

The state plan was a model for national universal health care legislation President Barack Obama signed earlier this year. A federal judge on Monday declared the law's mandate to get coverage is unconstitutional.

Patrick says the survey results are positive, and the state should focus on controlling the cost of insurance.

[Darwin]

Darwin, what do you propose as a solution? Clearly the free market is doing nothing right now to combat rising costs, and the vicious cycle of brand name drugs, high doctor salaries and profit making does not bode well for the average American. While I think the healthcare bill is poorly implemented due to the extreme number of compromises made, I do believe there needs to be reform beyond what the market can correct on its own.

Implicit in so many, most probably, discussions of this subject is that there must exist an overall "solution" to all the many tentacles, branches, niches and perceived/real inequities of our health care system. There may in fact be a solution, or a combination of them, that could work but there at least 535 differing opinions in Congress about what those might be in addition to the 300 million differing opinions of the populace at large so it beggars belief and defies logic that there is any combination of measures that will make even a small portion of that mass of folks "happy". Any overarching legislation that purports to tangle with this hideously complex situation is 100% guaranteed to be utterly rife with unintended consequences that will require endless "tuning" by subsequent legislation inevitably adding additional layers of the dreaded UC. My point is, and will remain, that it is entirely possible, extremely probable actually, that "doing nothing" will result in less, far less, overall harm than any massive multi-thousand page frighteningly omnibus legislative effort. Herding ten million cats would be a trivial undertaking compared to what is being "promised" by Obamacare.

This approach goes against the grain of most people and is opposed in general by the political classes, violently so by Progressives, but sometimes leaving well enough alone is indeed preferable. If the history of social legislation is any guide then there are few social "problems" that, with sufficient governmental good intentions, massive expenditures, and bureaucratic regulations, can not be made much worse. As Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

[sgreger1]

Implicit in so many, most probably, discussions of this subject is that there must exist an overall "solution" to all the many tentacles, branches, niches and perceived/real inequities of our health care system. There may in fact be a solution, or a combination of them, that could work but there at least 535 differing opinions in Congress about what those might be in addition to the 300 million differing opinions of the populace at large so it beggars belief and defies logic that there is any combination of measures that will make even a small portion of that mass of folks "happy". Any overarching legislation that purports to tangle with this hideously complex situation is 100% guaranteed to be utterly rife with unintended consequences that will require endless "tuning" by subsequent legislation inevitably adding additional layers of the dreaded UC. My point is, and will remain, that it is entirely possible, extremely probable actually, that "doing nothing" will result in less, far less, overall harm than any massive multi-thousand page frighteningly omnibus legislative effort. Herding ten million cats would be a trivial undertaking compared to what is being "promised" by Obamacare.

This approach goes against the grain of most people and is opposed in general by the political classes, violently so by Progressives, but sometimes leaving well enough alone is indeed preferable. If the history of social legislation is any guide then there are few social "problems" that, with sufficient governmental good intentions, massive expenditures, and bureaucratic regulations, can not be made much worse. As Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

We could open a whole new industry! Cat herding to create jobs!


I agree completelywith what you are saying though. We are trying to replace a patchwork system with an even patchyer system. I think it spells failure no matter what, and that isn't even necessarilly because reform is a bad idea, but rather it is just a mess as you pointed out above. I doubt muh good will come from it to be honest.

[Darwin]

Even the gummint "carrot" rarely achieves the desired results because of the malleable nature of the totality of the country's, and the world's, commercial enterprises. As I've remarked elsewhere on the forum generals are fond of trying to perfect fighting the last war. Government subsidies, the only carrot available to them, attempt to address the current situation regarding some issue and commonly run afoul of the fact that, in commercial terms, that carrot is only palatable to last week's, year's, decade's situation. A prime example is the whole move to digital television broadcasting which, due to its lengthy gestation period, was introduced just as the country was becoming essentially fully built out in terms of cable service which rendered the effort largely moot. A panel of Mensa level economists can't predict how the commercial landscape will evolve in the short term, let alone the long, but a bunch of politically motivated bureacrats can? Please.

[texastorm]

Call insurance what it is... gambling... then make it illegal.

Problem solved. Then the free market can truly dictate what your drugs and health care are worth.

Why people overlook the true problem, and even make it part of the impossible solution, is way beyond my scope of imagination.


Now I understand that insurance has become ingrained into your brainwashed heads as a necessity, chalk that up to many years of awesome pit bosses. But if that one thing had never materialized we would have been left to our own devices and ability to pay, and health care would reflect that. In my state less than 100 years ago, sometimes a doctor would accept barter as form of payment for health care. You brought the guy a chicken, or a bushel of apples. Try taking your prize pig to the ER with you today and see what you get.

I do however understand that removing the tumor(insurance) might kill the being(heath care) in question. I also know that its never going to be abolished except by a far worse alternative of universal health care. So I will continue to build my time machine and watch you guys bicker knowing full well that while insurance is part of the equation, there is no solution.

[raptor]

Call insurance what it is... gambling... then make it illegal.

Problem solved. Then the free market can truly dictate what your drugs and health care are worth.

Why people overlook the true problem, and even make it part of the impossible solution, is way beyond my scope of imagination.


Now I understand that insurance has become ingrained into your brainwashed heads as a necessity, chalk that up to many years of awesome pit bosses. But if that one thing had never materialized we would have been left to our own devices and ability to pay, and health care would reflect that. In my state less than 100 years ago, sometimes a doctor would accept barter as form of payment for health care. You brought the guy a chicken, or a bushel of apples. Try taking your prize pig to the ER with you today and see what you get.

I do however understand that removing the tumor(insurance) might kill the being(heath care) in question. I also know that its never going to be abolished except by a far worse alternative of universal health care. So I will continue to build my time machine and watch you guys bicker knowing full well that while insurance is part of the equation, there is no solution.

I agree that insurance is a tumor on society, just like a lot of middlemen businesses which universally increase costs so they can make a slice of the profits.

It would be an interesting experiment to see if that would be enough to decrease healthcare costs. But I think other adjustments would be necessary, like slashing doctors and executive incomes. That won't necessarily happen in the free market. Consider that today top jobs' incomes have tripled since 1970, if I recall the statistic properly, while middle and lower end jobs have remained stagnant.

[raptor]

My point is, and will remain, that it is entirely possible, extremely probable actually, that "doing nothing" will result in less, far less, overall harm than any massive multi-thousand page frighteningly omnibus legislative effort. Herding ten million cats would be a trivial undertaking compared to what is being "promised" by Obamacare.

This approach goes against the grain of most people and is opposed in general by the political classes, violently so by Progressives, but sometimes leaving well enough alone is indeed preferable. If the history of social legislation is any guide then there are few social "problems" that, with sufficient governmental good intentions, massive expenditures, and bureaucratic regulations, can not be made much worse. As Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

I think you're right in that doing nothing would be favorable compared to the bill that was passed, but that doesn't mean appropriate reforms shouldn't be taken.

[raptor]

And with regards to sgreger saying 80+% of Americans have healthcare insurance, one must really look into the benefits of those plans. I bet a large percentage of them are mere discount plans with very limited coverage (so, with a heart attack you're still out megabucks). I wouldn't call that sufficient.

[sgreger1]

I agree that insurance is a tumor on society, just like a lot of middlemen businesses which universally increase costs so they can make a slice of the profits.

It would be an interesting experiment to see if that would be enough to decrease healthcare costs. But I think other adjustments would be necessary, like slashing doctors and executive incomes. That won't necessarily happen in the free market. Consider that today top jobs' incomes have tripled since 1970, if I recall the statistic properly, while middle and lower end jobs have remained stagnant.

But how do you get around that darn newfangled constitution? I don't see how they could legally cut the pay of people. I mean, if that can do that, than what is stopping them from saying they are slashing all middle management income, and freezing it at $50k a year? I don't think they can just decide who gets paid what, and frankly I don't think they should be in the business of doing that, even if I do think CEO's are out of line.



But at the end of the day, these Dr's spend hundreds of thousands to get educated and get their practices running, should they make less? CEO's started companies and created jobs, should we punish them for doing this? If the product can be made cheaper, than why not start your own business and make competition? I just think tha the gov deciding salaries is a step in the wrong direction.

[sgreger1]

And with regards to sgreger saying 80+% of Americans have healthcare insurance, one must really look into the benefits of those plans. I bet a large percentage of them are mere discount plans with very limited coverage (so, with a heart attack you're still out megabucks). I wouldn't call that sufficient.

Let's just point out what all these numbers means. When you hear uninsured, take this into account:


In a June 30, 2009 article, the New York Times reported that, "An estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured."

^^^^-- So even once ObamaCare kicks in and everyone has insurance, it won't really affect medical bankruptcy, as three quarters of people who filed bankruptcy due to medical bills had insurance at the time.


85% of the nation already has health insurance. That leaves 46 million without insurance. Of that 46 million, 10 million of them are non-us citizens (illegals or here on temporary visa). So we are revamping the entire system to help (at the most) 36 million people, whilst the other 300 million are covered. Keep that in mind.


And many people don't want to pay for insurance. Of the 36 million US citizens without health insurance, 18.3 million of them are under 34, and likely didn't buy insurance because they feel "healthy". I know I did when I was younger (though this increases costs for everyone when those people get sick.


So now we are down to 18 million people.

Why do these 18 million not have insurance? What do we know about them?

In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.

So of the 18 million, 14 million of them make between $10,000 - $35,000 more than I do each year, yet I have health insurance. Why are these people opting out?

The point is that 90% of the uninsured are people who make almost double what I make a year. They, for whatever reason, do not have insurance. When ObamaCare kicks in, they will be forced to buy it.


That is going to leave a lot of people pisses.




I just don't see why we need to change the entire system just to fix a problem for 10% of the people, when 98% of that 10% make MORE money than I do, yet remain uninsured.





THEN, to make it worse:

A 2003 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association study concluded that, "More than 14 million uninsured Americans are already eligible for health insurance through Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)." These people could automatically be signed up for these programs by seeking care at a hospital. In addition, a Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute study shows that 7 out of 10 uninsured children could be covered if their parents chose to sign up for existing government programs.




So of the 14 million, 14 million are eligible for insurance RIGHT NOW through the government if they just took the time to sign up.



So essentially we are dealing with maybe 1-5% of Americans who don't have insurance. Of those 1-5%, a percentage of them are homeless or will choose to not pay for health insurance even post-ObamaCare.


Why change the whole system that includes 300 million people, just to fix a problem for 1-5% of people? Why not make a program for their needs instead? Oh, wait, most of them are already eligible for government insurance because they are poor.




Tl;DR:

So we have the poor who do no sign up for existing programs, and those making more money than me who just decided not to purchase insurance. <<-- Should we chagne the entire system just to force these two groups to join the risk pool for the insurane companies?

[sgreger1]

And with regards to sgreger saying 80+% of Americans have healthcare insurance, one must really look into the benefits of those plans. I bet a large percentage of them are mere discount plans with very limited coverage (so, with a heart attack you're still out megabucks). I wouldn't call that sufficient.

Additionally, do you think that will ever change? Someone has to pay for that expensive surgery for a heath attack. I mean, saving your life costs money. Someone somewhere is paying for it no matter what. I would easily choose a large medical bill over death. If we force them to give the procedures without recieving any money for it, we will start to see a lot of deaths. Because of this,the gov will pick up the tab and we will instead see a lot of debt. The point si that someone always has to pay.