Discussion: Health And Healthcare III

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Can someone explain to me how the police being able to strip search you after pulling you over for speeding or making an illegal U-turn is constitutional but ACA is not?

Because it looks like SCOTUS thinks that way. Go figure.

I got nothin' because that sounds absurd.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Although it sounds ludicrous on the surface,

Because it is.

the truth of the matter is that if you really think about the case, the government did force Ms. Raich to purchase marijuana illegally. She was not allowed to grow it in her own home

Okay, I am going to try one more time to explain why this is such a ridiculous argument:

1. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere does the Supreme Court mandate Ms. Raich to purchase marijuana illegally. Nor do they imply it.

2. By forcing Ms. Raich to purchase marijuana illegally, the Supreme Court would be going against the regulation that they upheld. And by that, they would also be forcing her to go against their own ruling WHICH MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!

3. To quote Justice Stevens in his opinion on Gonzales v. Raich:

First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug,the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law.

So basically, to sum it up, they pretty much call ******** on Ms. Raich's claims that she needed the marijuana.

for the same reason why Roscoe Filburn wasn't allowed to grow extra wheat beyond his quota to feed his chickens and store for the next planting season.

Mr. Filburn wasn't allowed to grow extra wheat, but he wasn't mandated to buy it from the open market. He had a variety of options to choose for on how to deal with the setback from his loss in the Supreme Court.

Just one person doing this act might not have much significance on interstate commerce, but if a collective of people who do this act were looked at, it would have a significant effect on interstate commerce and the government's ability to regulate it. Therefore, Angel Raich, who could only use marijuana to ease her pain and prolong her life, was forced to take her chances and buy it on the black market, and Roscoe Filburn, who was primarily a wheat and dairy farmer, was forced to buy some alternative to feed his chickens and cows. Just as that was the case, the same thing can be applied to the regulation of the health care market. Maybe one person or a group of people (for religious reasons) choosing not to get health insurance may not be significant, but the cumulative effect of a lot of people not getting insurance (we have close to 50 million as of last year) and then purchasing it once they get sick will affect interstate commerce and Congress' ability to regulate it when it comes to the cost of health care. This is why they are justified in requiring that everyone (excluding religious objectors) show proof that they have health insurance.

Nowhere in Gonzales v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn does the Supreme Court mandate that they have to purchase something. That is the key difference here.

One final thing. The notion that the government can not force you to buy something is not something that has never been done before, nor dose it necessitate that it was intended to be unconstitutional. In 1792, Congress passed the Second Militia Act, that required all white males to purchase a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. That act was signed into law by George Washington. In 1798, Congress passed An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen (see here and here), which required privately employed sailors to purchase health insurance. That act was signed into law by John Adams. Now, I have seen people (lawyers at that) who argue that those laws were never challenged in the courts,

Well, it's exactly as you say, they were never challenged in the courts. If they were passed in today's day and age, they most likely would have.

Not only that, but John Adams, the man who passed the act that told sailors to purchase health insurance constantly violated the Constitution with the Alien and Sedition Acts, his midnight appointments, and whatnot.

but considering the dates and that the people who were presidents at the time, we would have to conclude that these laws were drafted by people who were the original framers of the Constitution and that it was their firm belief and intent that the Constitution would allow for the Federal government to do such things. This is not an over reach, nor an expansion of government power, but just an exercise in the government's ability to regulate interstate commerce.

The Second Militia Act is more along the lines of enforcing the Second Amendment in order for the government to call up a well armed and regulated militia and has nothing to do with Congress' Commerce Power.

And the Supreme Court was in no position to challenge the act that required sailors to purchase health insurance. Until John Marshall took up the bench as Chief Justice, the abilities of the Supreme Court were extremely limited due to them not really knowing the full extent of their abilities, most Justices not even wanting to be Justices and other responsibilities of the Justices that preoccupied them from hearing many, many, MANY cases.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Because it is.

... not.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Okay, I am going to try one more time to explain why this is such a ridiculous argument:

1. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere does the Supreme Court mandate Ms. Raich to purchase marijuana illegally. Nor do they imply it.

2. By forcing Ms. Raich to purchase marijuana illegally, the Supreme Court would be going against the regulation that they upheld. And by that, they would also be forcing her to go against their own ruling WHICH MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!![SIZE=5]

[SIZE=2]3. To quote Justice Stevens in his opinion on Gonzales v. Raich:



So basically, to sum it up, they pretty much call ******** on Ms. Raich's claims that she needed the marijuana.

The fact remains that she was not allowed to grow it in her own home so she had to purchase it on the black market. Furthermore, because the Federal government has no jurisdiction on the possession of marijuana, Ms. Raich could safely purchase it in California so long as she has a medical marijuana card. Your call to ******** went unanswered. She was forced to buy marijuana because she wasn't allowed to grow it herself.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Mr. Filburn wasn't allowed to grow extra wheat, but he wasn't mandated to buy it from the open market. He had a variety of options to choose for on how to deal with the setback from his loss in the Supreme Court.

The government is not telling you to buy health insurance either. They are only asking you to show proof that you have it. It's the same thing as Filburn or Raich. They are not telling them to buy anything, but the laws as they are force them to do that to avoid a penalty.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Nowhere in Gonzales v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn does the Supreme Court mandate that they have to purchase something. That is the key difference here.

The court's place is only to interpet the law. It is not they who are forcing these people to do something it's the law. If you can not grow more that 223 bushels of wheat on your farm and you need food to feed your cattle, you either take it out of your quota or you go buy feed. If you can not grow marijuana and you need it for medical reasons, you have to buy it (whether it is illegal or not). If you can not walk in public naked, you have to buy clothes. The government doesn't have to tell you to buy anything to force you to buy something, it is the fact that the law prevents or requires you to do something else that forces you to buy the product.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Well, it's exactly as you say, they were never challenged in the courts. If they were passed in today's day and age, they most likely would have.

Not only that, but John Adams, the man who passed the act that told sailors to purchase health insurance constantly violated the Constitution with the Alien and Sedition Acts, his midnight appointments, and whatnot.

The Second Militia Act is more along the lines of enforcing the Second Amendment in order for the government to call up a well armed and regulated militia and has nothing to do with Congress' Commerce Power.

You miss the point that these laws were written by people who were the framers of the Constitution, which means that their intent was not to refrain the government from forcing its citizens from buying a product. Furthermore the only law that was signed by Either Adams or Washington that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was the the writ of mandamus clause of the Judiciary act of 1789. The Sedition Act was found unconstitutional by the House Judiciary Committee. You make it sound like John Adams wrote many laws that were found unconstitutional when there was only one clause of one law and one entire act that was. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the Seamen Act was passed with no challenge.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

And the Supreme Court was in no position to challenge the act that required sailors to purchase health insurance. Until John Marshall took up the bench as Chief Justice, the abilities of the Supreme Court were extremely limited due to them not really knowing the full extent of their abilities, most Justices not even wanting to be Justices and other responsibilities of the Justices that preoccupied them from hearing many, many, MANY cases.

Someone would have had to bring it up through the courts and the SCOTUS would have taken it up upon appeal. The thing is, that never happened, more than likely because people thought it was fair and just to begin with.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by dnno1

... not.

The fact remains that she was not allowed to grow it in her own home so she had to purchase it on the black market. Furthermore, because the Federal government has no jurisdiction on the possession of marijuana, Ms. Raich could safely purchase it in California so long as she has a medical marijuana card. Your call to ******** went unanswered. She was forced to buy marijuana because she wasn't allowed to grow it herself.

The government is not telling you to buy health insurance either. They are only asking you to show proof that you have it. It's the same thing as Filburn or Raich. They are not telling them to buy anything, but the laws as they are force them to do that to avoid a penalty.

The court's place is only to interpet the law. It is not they who are forcing these people to do something it's the law. If you can not grow more that 223 bushels of wheat on your farm and you need food to feed your cattle, you either take it out of your quota or you go buy feed. If you can not grow marijuana and you need it for medical reasons, you have to buy it (whether it is illegal or not). If you can not walk in public naked, you have to buy clothes. The government doesn't have to tell you to buy anything to force you to buy something, it is the fact that the law prevents or requires you to do something else that forces you to buy the product.

You miss the point that these laws were written by people who were the framers of the Constitution, which means that their intent was not to refrain the government from forcing its citizens from buying a product. Furthermore the only law that was signed by Either Adams or Washington that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was the the writ of mandamus clause of the Judiciary act of 1789. The Sedition Act was found unconstitutional by the House Judiciary Committee. You make it sound like John Adams wrote many laws that were found unconstitutional when there was only one clause of one law and one entire act that was. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the Seamen Act was passed with no challenge.

I literally give up. I am really just utterly baffled on how you can even think that the Supreme Court is forcing someone to buy marijuana illegally or a penalty is not forcing someone to do something. I'm done here.

Someone would have had to bring it up through the courts and the SCOTUS would have taken it up upon appeal. The thing is, that never happened, more than likely because people thought it was fair and just to begin with.

The Supreme Court heard very, very, very few cases back in it's early days. The Justices had far too many responsibilities to hear many cases and the Constitution just really wasn't clear on what the Supreme Court can and cannot do to the point where no one wanted to be a Justice to begin with.

The Court just was not in the position back then to hear a case like that.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I literally give up. I am really just utterly baffled on how you can even think that the Supreme Court is forcing someone to buy marijuana illegally or a penalty is not forcing someone to do something. I'm done here.

I never said that. I either said the government or Congress.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

The Supreme Court heard very, very, very few cases back in it's early days. The Justices had far too many responsibilities to hear many cases and the Constitution just really wasn't clear on what the Supreme Court can and cannot do to the point where no one wanted to be a Justice to begin with.

The Court just was not in the position back then to hear a case like that.

This is partly true, but that doesn't mean that the An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen could not have been challenged in the lower courts. It never was (or at least there is no record of it being overturned).

Since you have given up, I will conclude by recapping what was said. Your argument was that both Wickard and Raich were cases where the law did not force these parties (Filburn and Raich) to buy a product. The truth of the matter was that the laws indirectly did so because of their penalizing nature. Even with that, it is not unprecedented that the government mandate that people engage in economic activity since it has been done many times in the past, even going back to 1789.

That being said, this was not necessarily the reasons why those two cases were cited in the Supreme Court case of the United States v. Florida. They were cited because of the tests that the courts made to justify Congress' use of their commerce powers. If it is a channel of interstate commerce, an organization or person engaged in interstate commerce, or an activity that has a significant impact on interstate commerce, then Congress has the power to regulate it. In cases where it is an activity that significantly impacts interstate commerce, Congress' actions must be necessary and proper. In that case, even intrastate commerce and economic inactivity can be regulated if it significantly impacts interstate commerce or the ability of Congress to regulate it.

As this applies to health care reform, the manner in which Congress chose to regulate it was through the payment system for health care (i.e. health insurance). Congress chose a system that took advantage of the existing infrastructure where 80% of the population already have health care and they mandated that everyone show proof that they had the minimum coverage to ensure that almost everyone had coverage. The Federal government holds that they are within their power to do this because, for the per person cost of health insurance to go down, a large insurance pool is needed. A person making the economic decision not the get health insurance interferes with Congress' ability to regulate health insurance premiums and significantly impacts commerce since the cumulative effect of all citizens not engaged in the health insurance market does effect the cost of premiums. Therefore it is necessary and proper for them to do what they did. Sure, they could have done something else, like a universal single payer system where everyone pays a tax, but Congress chose to use its commerce power to regulate the entire system and followed the guidelines laid out in Wickard and Raich as a justification for their actions.

[The Riddler]

if i were a betting man, i would say the health care reform will be shot down.

citing any arguments or cases is irrelevant because the supreme court will decide the case based on whatever they personally feel like; the merits of the case are immaterial. the justices' personal/political motivations will govern the outcome.

for example, prior to the raich case, lopez and morrison signified a narrower interpretation of the commerce clause after decades of broad deference afforded to congress. however, in deciding the raich case, the court decided to travel back in history and cite wickard rather than more recent precedent.

the truth is, for whatever argument or case anyone brings up, there is a counter. commerce clause jurisprudence has been muddled since its inception; court created tests or rules are arbitrarily applied and reinterpreted. this case's decision will be subject to the whims of the supreme court justices, and nothing being argued on either side will change that.

[Anita18]

Just popping in again to say: my 30-year-old coworker is in the hospital due to excruciating pain that has unknown causes. He's had pretty bad pain the past 3 months and has been seeing doctors every week trying to figure out what the cause is, but yesterday it had just gotten too bad and he went to the ER. They're doing CT scans (again) and endoscopies (again), but now they want to transfer him to a different hospital because of insurance reasons. Even though his GI doctor (the one who's been managing everything from the beginning) is there and doesn't believe he should be transferred, but apparently admin thinks insurance >>>> patient.

I paid him a visit last night. He's in no shape to be transported anywhere. Painkillers are no longer helping, and they gave him the hardcore stuff. He looks like hell. I think it's bullcrap that hospitals shuffle patients around to avoid dealing with insurance paperwork. The last time he was at a hospital, he shared a room with someone who was ultimately diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. That hospital tried to dump the man and his family off to another hospital, because they didn't want to treat him.

I know that many people who are against single payer point to the fact that we won't have a "choice" and that undermines "freedom" and "the Constitution." Is being transferred to another hospital against your will freedom? Is having to choose between doctors and hospitals because of insurance networks freedom? Is having to wait WEEKS before getting tests done because you're waiting on insurance approval (which is what my coworker has had to do) freedom???

Oh yeah, it's sure freedom for people who are bazillionaires and can pay for the best doctors and the best hospitals and don't care if the bill runs into millions of dollars (which is not unusual for cancer treatment). But guess what, very few people can do that. The 99% and all.

I don't even want to begin to think what his hospital costs will be after all this is said and done. And this is a guy who JUST turned 30, otherwise very healthy (doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, isn't near overweight) aside from an anxiety problem, which isn't uncommon at all.

He joked that his mother might visit and whisk him back to France so they don't have to stand for this crap. I'm thinking I'll do the same once I hit my 40s.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Riddler

if i were a betting man, i would say the health care reform will be shot down.

citing any arguments or cases is irrelevant because the supreme court will decide the case based on whatever they personally feel like; the merits of the case are immaterial. the justices' personal/political motivations will govern the outcome.

for example, prior to the raich case, lopez and morrison signified a narrower interpretation of the commerce clause after decades of broad deference afforded to congress. however, in deciding the raich case, the court decided to travel back in history and cite ickard rather than more recent precedent.

the truth is, for whatever argument or case anyone brings up, there is a counter. commerce clause jurisprudence has been muddled since its inception; court created tests or rules are arbitrarily applied and reinterpreted. this case's decision will be subject to the whims of the supreme court justices, and nothing being argued on either side will change that.

Even though it might seem that the court is deciding any way they like they still do respect the principal of stare decisis (i.e. the obligation to respect the decisions made by prior courts). It is only when the current environment shows that the law is impractical, the public no longer has reliance on it, the doctrinal principal has been repudiated by society, or the factual basis of the law has collapsed, can the law be overturned. That is why the court overturned Plessy v. Furgeson in 1952 (see Brown v. Board of Education) and upheld Roe v. Wade when it came up again in 1992 (see Casey v. Planned Parenthood). By 1952 it became evident that "separate but equal" was impractical and in 1992 it was evident that a significant part of society had developed a reliance on the practice of abortions. Yes, citing prior cases are relevant for that reason.

Lopez and Morrison showed the limitation of the commerce clause by pointing out that Congress must be specific about the type of commerce they are regulating. In Lopez, a boy brought a gun to school. Congress did not have the authority to prohibit the possession of a firearm near or in a school under the commerce clause because possessing a firearm in itself was not commerce and had no significant impact on interstate commerce. In the Morrison case, Congress had no authority to prosecute a man for raping a woman under the commerce clause because the law, the Violence against Women Act, was very vague about the type of commerce that would be impacted by a woman getting raped (it just said that if the rape occurred near commerce the victim would be afraid to return to partake there in the future). It was not clear about what type of commerce was impacted and the majority opinion in the court felt that it was not their place to infer what it would be.

This is not the case with the Affordable Care Act. Unlike Lopez, the decision not to engage in the health insurance market does have a significant effect on interstate commerce, which would be similar to Wickard and Raich, since it contributes to the rising costs of health care to the individual. Because of this Congress is within their power to penalize someone who fails to show proof that he met the requirement for minimum coverage. This is why the law will be upheld. If the decision not to purchase health insurance had no relationship to rising costs, the law would be overturned.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by Anita18

Just popping in again to say: my 30-year-old coworker is in the hospital due to excruciating pain that has unknown causes. He's had pretty bad pain the past 3 months and has been seeing doctors every week trying to figure out what the cause is, but yesterday it had just gotten too bad and he went to the ER. They're doing CT scans (again) and endoscopies (again), but now they want to transfer him to a different hospital because of insurance reasons. Even though his GI doctor (the one who's been managing everything from the beginning) is there and doesn't believe he should be transferred, but apparently admin thinks insurance >>>> patient.

I paid him a visit last night. He's in no shape to be transported anywhere. Painkillers are no longer helping, and they gave him the hardcore stuff. He looks like hell. I think it's bullcrap that hospitals shuffle patients around to avoid dealing with insurance paperwork. The last time he was at a hospital, he shared a room with someone who was ultimately diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. That hospital tried to dump the man and his family off to another hospital, because they didn't want to treat him.

I know that many people who are against single payer point to the fact that we won't have a "choice" and that undermines "freedom" and "the Constitution." Is being transferred to another hospital against your will freedom? Is having to choose between doctors and hospitals because of insurance networks freedom? Is having to wait WEEKS before getting tests done because you're waiting on insurance approval (which is what my coworker has had to do) freedom???

Oh yeah, it's sure freedom for people who are bazillionaires and can pay for the best doctors and the best hospitals and don't care if the bill runs into millions of dollars (which is not unusual for cancer treatment). But guess what, very few people can do that. The 99% and all.

I don't even want to begin to think what his hospital costs will be after all this is said and done. And this is a guy who JUST turned 30, otherwise very healthy (doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, isn't near overweight) aside from an anxiety problem, which isn't uncommon at all.

He joked that his mother might visit and whisk him back to France so they don't have to stand for this crap. I'm thinking I'll do the same once I hit my 40s.

Single payer isn't working in France.

Also...if your friend has a super rare disease where medicine that costs a lot to extend your life is available...Single Payer in France, UK, and Canada will let you die.

The big problem with healthcare in the US is cost. That isn't the fault of the evil insurance companies. Sorry to hear about your friend...best wishes.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Single payer isn't working in France.

Also...if your friend has a super rare disease where medicine that costs a lot to extend your life is available...Single Payer in France, UK, and Canada will let you die.

The big problem with healthcare in the US is cost. That isn't the fault of the evil insurance companies. Sorry to hear about your friend...best wishes.

Technically, France isn't single payer, but "universal health care," and it won't prevent doctors from treating your super rare disease if you have the money/insurance. That part we already have in place....for every case. If you don't want the public insurance, you can buy private. Nobody's forcing you to get the public coverage if you don't want it. They do have a mix, which I think is fair.

France has a good reputation for providing good medical care. At least he's had no complaints about it when he used it over there. The UK, however, that's another story. And the costs might be rising, but they still spend less per person on healthcare than we do, and they have a higher life expectancy.

My friend is not dying. What he mostly needs right now is painkillers and tests (and maybe some not-complicated surgery, eventually), and they're not unusual tests either. Mostly CT scans and endoscopies. And he has been met with resistance by both his hospital and his insurance on both counts.

My point is, at least in places with universal health care, you can get cancer (which is not uncommon, and let's face it, "super-rare diseases" are just that, "super-rare") and not have to worry about treatment costs. The guy who was in the same hospital room as my friend had just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and the hospital actively tried to get rid of him, because they knew he wouldn't be able to pay - he was a low-income farm worker.

That's disgusting. What you say is happening with single-payer, is happening here, right now. And not just with "super-rare diseases" either.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Single payer isn't working in France.

Also...if your friend has a super rare disease where medicine that costs a lot to extend your life is available...Single Payer in France, UK, and Canada will let you die.

The big problem with healthcare in the US is cost. That isn't the fault of the evil insurance companies. Sorry to hear about your friend...best wishes.

Certainly it is working since there sill is a single payer system there, everyone is getting some type of care, and people are living longer (on average) that in the Untied States. You know that it is working when people have to find rare cases where people couldn't get coverage to say that it failed. Just for the record, the whole rare disease issue was resolved back in 2004 in France with their national plan for rare diseases. Canada is slowly adopting a similar program.

The cost of health care in the United States is one of the big problems, but another big problem is/was the fact that people were being denied coverage because they had a per-existing condition.

[chaseter]

Last I remember, France had projected multi billion dollar deficits for their healthcare. They were trying to fight that by increasing consumer costs. Yeah it is a bit different from single payer but it operates the same way in that the government pays for it.

The French living longer than Americans isn't just because everyone has healthcare. I think it is only 3 years so it isn't anything drastic. The US is largely much less healthy than the French. Our obesity rates are off the charts and obesity related diseases don't mean crap if you get free healthcare. I am not saying the French have terrible healthcare, I am saying that all these European models of free healthcare are starting to crumble. Everyone was spending like crazy and then when revenues decreased, things started to crumble and now deficits are leading to cuts.

The US has good healthcare, it is just so pricey. The government taking it over isn't going to solve it. But, the government can do some things to lower costs. It's good that people cannot be denied because of a disease that they have, that was a good step. Big Pharma here in the US is out of control. We allow them to advertise on tv and charge outrageous amounts for designer drugs that the doctors then peddle. We then allow them to corner the market for I think it's 7 years. They then can add one ingredient and keep the market for another 7 years. It's crazy the monopolies drug companies have here.

dnno...I don't know how many times we have had this argument. UHC, Single Payer, etc. cannot cover every single patient. It's not feasible in the slightest. The US has higher breast cancer and colon cancer survival rates that France. Not everyone can be treated for everything and the government be able to pay for it. It's just not possible.

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Certainly it is working since there sill is a single payer system there, everyone is getting some type of care, and people are living longer (on average) that in the Untied States. You know that it is working when people have to find rare cases where people couldn't get coverage to say that it failed. Just for the record, the whole rare disease issue was resolved back in 2004 in France with their national plan for rare diseases. Canada is slowly adopting a similar program.

The cost of health care in the United States is one of the big problems, but another big problem is/was the fact that people were being denied coverage because they had a per-existing condition.

I can't stand when single payer advocates do this...but average lifespan is caused by many things other than just healthcare.......culture, demographics, eating habits, exercise, lifestyle, and accident rates can all affect life span so its not fair to point to single payer as being the sole cause of greater life span.

[hippie_hunter]

NYT is reporting that the GOP is developing an alternative health care plan in the possible event that the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

I can't stand when single payer advocates do this...but average lifespan is caused by many things other than just healthcare.......culture, demographics, eating habits, exercise, lifestyle, and accident rates can all affect life span so its not fair to point to single payer as being the sole cause of greater life span.

Same here. It would be a much better argument on the economics of a single payer system than the extremely misleading life span argument.

[The Riddler]

Originally Posted by dnno1

This is not the case with the Affordable Care Act. Unlike Lopez, the decision not to engage in the health insurance market does have a significant effect on interstate commerce, which would be similar to Wickard and Raich, since it contributes to the rising costs of health care to the individual. Because of this Congress is within their power to penalize someone who fails to show proof that he met the requirement for minimum coverage. This is why the law will be upheld. If the decision not to purchase health insurance had no relationship to rising costs, the law would be overturned.

it isn't quite so black and white; anyone who thinks they definitively know how the court will rule is a bit misguided.

the ACA obviously has an enormous impact on interstate commerce, but i believe morrison showed that alone was not sufficient. i never cared to look into the type of evidence congress presented in that case, but i remember it was said to be quite substantive and at least persuasive enough to show that gender motivated violence had a clear and significant effect on interstate commerce.

regardless, the best argument against the ACA is rather clear, and it's largely distinct from looking into its impact on interstate commerce. essentially it's one of separation of powers, and the autonomy of citizens. many of the fears of the court in dagenhart would be realized; if congress can issue mandates through the commerce clause, really, what can't they do through the commerce clause? anything can be argued to have impact on interstate commerce; you don't need to be creative to see the implications such a ruling may have on the expansion of congressional authority over not only commerce, but over the most local of matters. within the realm of commerce clause jurisprudence, wickard already represented enormous deference to congress; upholding the ACA would go even a step further by finding that citizens who are not affirmative actors within commerce may still be regulated under the commerce clause.

really, though, there are just as many valid reasons for upholding the ACA, many of which you have pointed out.

lastly, stare decisis means nothing; it only holds hollow weight when the justices and political realities of the era allow it to. just looking at commerce clause jurisprudence shows that the widening and narrowing of congress' authority under the commerce clause is entirely cyclical and largely the product of the political environment and the justices on the bench. also, precedent really doesn't matter when you have good law on both sides that you can very easily use to justify either opinion.

[Anita18]

You know what? F***this country and its messed up healthcare.

The doctors in France suspect my coworker has pancreatic cancer. And the US doctors DID find cysts in his pancreas but heavily suggested he hold off on the needle biopsy until he could be with his family. After months of tests and resistance from insurance every step of the way (taking up time, which is as precious as gold when it comes to pancreatic cancer), they didn't want the responsibility of treating a young, insured patient who was here legally. His tumor markers have tripled since the last time he was tested, in the US.

I swear I'm moving out of here when I hit 40. Maybe sooner. I'm not going to stand for this kind of crap.

[Thor The Mighty]

Originally Posted by Anita18

Technically, France isn't single payer, but "universal health care," and it won't prevent doctors from treating your super rare disease if you have the money/insurance. That part we already have in place....for every case. If you don't want the public insurance, you can buy private. Nobody's forcing you to get the public coverage if you don't want it. They do have a mix, which I think is fair.

France has a good reputation for providing good medical care. At least he's had no complaints about it when he used it over there. The UK, however, that's another story. And the costs might be rising, but they still spend less per person on healthcare than we do, and they have a higher life expectancy.

My friend is not dying. What he mostly needs right now is painkillers and tests (and maybe some not-complicated surgery, eventually), and they're not unusual tests either. Mostly CT scans and endoscopies. And he has been met with resistance by both his hospital and his insurance on both counts.

My point is, at least in places with universal health care, you can get cancer (which is not uncommon, and let's face it, "super-rare diseases" are just that, "super-rare") and not have to worry about treatment costs. The guy who was in the same hospital room as my friend had just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and the hospital actively tried to get rid of him, because they knew he wouldn't be able to pay - he was a low-income farm worker.

That's disgusting. What you say is happening with single-payer, is happening here, right now. And not just with "super-rare diseases" either.

I agree with you.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

NYT is reporting that the GOP is developing an alternative health care plan in the possible event that the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare.

...they had better have some sort of "alternative" plan should this get struck down by the court.

[Marx]

The Supreme Court's ruling on "Obamacare" is expected to announced on thursday.

[Matt]

The Times and Post have already started writing the obituaries to Obamacare.

[hippie_hunter]

I think that we're all pretty much expecting the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate at this point.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I think that we're all pretty much expecting the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate at this point.

I think the real question at this point is if the individual mandate is going to be struck down or whether the whole law is.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

I think the real question at this point is if the individual mandate is going to be struck down or whether the whole law is.

Pretty much.

[Marx]

The individual mandate should be struck down. The problem was never that people didn't want health insurance. The problem is that people cannot afford health insurance.

That being said, there are many parts of the law (like children being able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 and coverage of pre-existing conditions) that people do support. To strike the entire law down wouldn't be wise.