Discussion: Health And Healthcare III

[hippie_hunter]

It would have never got through Congress.

Very true

There are more ways to solve a matter than to nationalize it. In any case, there still may be an alternative (that does not need any additional legislation) to address this matter.

Obama should have gone along with the Republicans ideas IMO. It would have made him look bipartisan and in the event that if they didn't work he could have gone "I told you so" and a public that would have been much more receptive towards his ideas.

Now it's looking very likely that the Administration is going to have a lot of egg on its face during a critical time during the election.

 

[Paradoxium]

I am enjoying the fact that Obama didn't select a stellar left wing judge but got Kagan instead. A point made a while ago. These kind of cases is where the superstar left judge could influence the swing vote. Think of a A. Scalia for the left. Hahaha it was Ginsburg who was defending Obama's lackey too, not Kagan

 

[dnno1]

You're arguing against single payer? Seriously? And you call yourself a liberal?

I firmly believe had Clinton won the White House we'd have a single payer right. Obama's problem with the healthcare debate was his obsession with reaching out to the Republicans. Hell that is his problem with his whole presidency. He is obsessed with being liked, even at the cost of being effective. Because of that, he too often tries to rationalize with irrational people.

Clinton on the other hand is a natural fighter. Rather than reaching across the aisle she would've spent those initial months whipping her own party into line and making sure not a single Democrat would've gone against her. She would've had the votes.

Don't get me wrong. I am for single payer, but I do realize that we do have a health care system that exists right now. It would not be realistic to think that you could change that system over night or even over a 4-year period with a piece of legislation (even if that legislation were to be passed -- note that Mitch McConnell recently went on record that they would do noting else more than allow citizens to purchase insurance across state lines and pass tort reform legislation). It would have too much of an impact on the economy. I think an easier route was to go the way they did, but to offer a competing public option (which still could happen).

 

[dnno1]

Obama should have gone along with the Republicans ideas IMO. It would have made him look bipartisan and in the event that if they didn't work he could have gone "I told you so" and a public that would have been much more receptive towards his ideas.

Now it's looking very likely that the Administration is going to have a lot of egg on its face during a critical time during the election.

The solution they chose was a Republican idea. How soon do we forget that the individual mandate was what the right wing proposed as early as 1994, when the Clinton Administration took up health care reform. The supported that up until 2009, when the Obama Administration adopted it for their plan.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The solution they chose was a Republican idea. How soon do we forget that the individual mandate was what the right wing proposed as early as 1994, when the Clinton Administration took up health care reform. The supported that up until 2009, when the Obama Administration adopted it for their plan.

Except that was a Republican plan almost 20 years ago. The GOP has shifted to the right since then.

 

[Paradoxium]

Why would one adopt the Republican's comically bad ideas?

 

[dnno1]

Why would one adopt the Republican's comically bad ideas?

Because, it's working in Massachusetts and Hawaii.

 

[Paradoxium]

Sure it is. t:

 

[dnno1]

I think that Justices like Scalia and Allito (as well as the respondents) were arguing that if the government could mandate that you buy a product, then the could force you to buy anything which would be a great overreach. But, the thing they didn't make evident is that health care and health insurance are a very unique case. Almost everyone has participated in it from the time they were born and maybe sometime in the future, they will participate in the health care system, and, hence, engage in interstate commerce. That implies that Congress can mandate that you purchase health care under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

 

[dnno1]

Except that was a Republican plan almost 20 years ago. The GOP has shifted to the right since then.

That was their plan up to 2009. They negotiated that into the law in committee. The then flipped when they realized that it was going to get signed into law by Barack Obama.

 

[Paradoxium]

If they strike down the individual mandate, shorting health insurance is going to be an immediately and profitable venture. I am going to watch this one like a hawk.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That was their plan up to 2009. They negotiated that into the law in committee. The then flipped when they realized that it was going to get signed into law by Barack Obama.

And note that the GOP dramatically shifted far more to the right after the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections. Moderates who would have supported a mandate were voted out of office while the more hard core right winged GOP legislators remained in office.

 

[Paradoxium]

Some companies went down today between the morning and noon on this possibility. Rationale goes, more coverage by law + less people paying for insurance = shorts ftw.

 

[chaseter]

I think that Justices like Scalia and Allito (as well as the respondents) were arguing that if the government could mandate that you buy a product, then the could force you to buy anything which would be a great overreach. But, the thing they didn't make evident is that health care and health insurance are a very unique case. Almost everyone has participated in it from the time they were born and maybe sometime in the future, they will participate in the health care system, and, hence, engage in interstate commerce. That implies that Congress can mandate that you purchase health care under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Except it's intrastate, not interstate. I can't buy New Jersey coverage.

Also, a great example was brought up in the hearings today. Everyone dies and their body has to be disposed. If they can't afford burial or cremation then the state had to pay that cost or it's passed on to family members. Should the government make us buy burial coverage?

Here's a novel idea: if you can't afford insurance then the government helps you at free clinics and free emergency rooms. Of course the quality of care will be lower...that's just reality. It's why Europe quality of care is lower. It's why UHS over there lets people die because their medications or procedures are too expensive.

Also...poor people will get waivers from the fee of not having healthcare. So, not very much money is going into the system. But...all of a sudden 20-30 million people are now insured and a lot of them can't afford it. Guess what is going to happen to costs? I'll give you a hint, it's already happened. I'll give you another hint, costs will rise. That really wasn't a hint.

 

[samsnee]

I love it. Some people here are saying Obama should have gone with a Republican idea in order to have a successful health care plan. Others are saying his mistake was reaching out to the Republicans. Liberals think he's too moderate, conservatives think he's too liberal. The guy is screwed from both ends.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I love it. Some people here are saying Obama should have gone with a Republican idea in order to have a successful health care plan. Others are saying his mistake was reaching out to the Republicans. Liberals think he's too moderate, conservatives think he's too liberal. The guy is screwed from both ends.

I think from a political standpoint he should have gone with the Republican ideas. Going with the Republican ideas would have made him look bipartisan instead of someone who just pretended to be bipartisan while in reality was shoving something that people didn't like. It probably wouldn't have cost the Democrats as many seats in Congress and the governorships. And if the GOP-led reforms failed, he could have gone with a "I told you so!" mantra and the public would have bought it and be far more accepting to his ideas because the GOP would have lost all credibility. It would have given him both short term and long term victory.

If Obama went with the GOP's ideas he would have won the battle and the war. But now while he may have won the initial battle, but he lost war.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

You're arguing against single payer? Seriously? And you call yourself a liberal?

I firmly believe had Clinton won the White House we'd have a single payer right. Obama's problem with the healthcare debate was his obsession with reaching out to the Republicans. Hell that is his problem with his whole presidency. He is obsessed with being liked, even at the cost of being effective. Because of that, he too often tries to rationalize with irrational people.

Clinton on the other hand is a natural fighter. Rather than reaching across the aisle she would've spent those initial months whipping her own party into line and making sure not a single Democrat would've gone against her. She would've had the votes.

Except Hillary Clinton's health plan included the individual mandate. Obama even made an issue of it in the campaign.

Watch this revealing clip of Obama in 2008 attacking the Clinton health plan by saying it would be like solving the problem of homelessness by forcing everyone to buy a home:

[YT]7-1SMV3ok58[/YT]

I think from a political standpoint he should have gone with the Republican ideas. Going with the Republican ideas would have made him look bipartisan instead of someone who just pretended to be bipartisan while in reality was shoving something that people didn't like. It probably wouldn't have cost the Democrats as many seats in Congress and the governorships. And if the GOP-led reforms failed, he could have gone with a "I told you so!" mantra and the public would have bought it and be far more accepting to his ideas because the GOP would have lost all credibility. It would have given him both short term and long term victory.

If Obama went with the GOP's ideas he would have won the battle and the war. But now while he may have won the initial battle, but he lost war.

What are you talking about? He did go with the Republican ideas.

 

[DACrowe]

Except that was a Republican plan almost 20 years ago. The GOP has shifted to the right since then.

If Obama or any DNC Administration took on some of the GOP's ideas they'd shift even further to the right and call their previous position "socialism." Let's not forget that the Dole-Gingrich counterproposal hatched by the Heritage Foundation may have created in the individual mandate as a market-friendly solution 20 years ago, but it was still the GOP "solution" only seven years ago when Mitt Romney championed it as healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

The point is that the right simply will not support anything proposed in this matter by Democrats. It is moot. If Obama is reelected it will stick and if he isn't it won't. The SCOTUS may scoff at the administration saying it's a "tax," but most of the justices, including Roberts, were skeptical about the claim that the individual mandate could be separated and removed from the law as it is a stand-alone penalty.

I think the court will uphold the law with a 5-4 or even 6-3 vote and it will be more campaign fodder for the coming general when we get the opinion in June or so.

 

[DACrowe]

You're arguing against single payer? Seriously? And you call yourself a liberal?

I firmly believe had Clinton won the White House we'd have a single payer right. Obama's problem with the healthcare debate was his obsession with reaching out to the Republicans. Hell that is his problem with his whole presidency. He is obsessed with being liked, even at the cost of being effective. Because of that, he too often tries to rationalize with irrational people.

Clinton on the other hand is a natural fighter. Rather than reaching across the aisle she would've spent those initial months whipping her own party into line and making sure not a single Democrat would've gone against her. She would've had the votes.

What are you talking about?

Clinton campaigned on what we got with "Obamacare." Unless you're arguing that she'd have gotten a public option--even though it wasn't the GOP that killed that, but Nelson, Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln.

In any case, while Clinton is a fighter, she's also a survivor. I imagine if the special interests and GOP dragged it out to December like they did with Obama that she would have taken Rahm Emmanuel's advice and dropped the big package for smaller incremental change. She may be more of a partisan warrior, but HCR became toxic by winter 2009/2010 and much like she and Bill dropped it in 1994, she would have backed off instead of going all in.

Oh well. It's kind of moot now to wonder.

 

[hippie_hunter]

What are you talking about? He did go with the Republican ideas.

Republican ideas 20 years ago. The Republican Party of today is different than the Republican Party of the early 1990's.

 

[hippie_hunter]

If Obama or any DNC Administration took on some of the GOP's ideas they'd shift even further to the right and call their previous position "socialism." Let's not forget that the Dole-Gingrich counterproposal hatched by the Heritage Foundation may have created in the individual mandate as a market-friendly solution 20 years ago, but it was still the GOP "solution" only seven years ago when Mitt Romney championed it as healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts. Massachusetts really isn't the standard bearer of the GOP.

The GOP probably stopped supporting the mandate a couple of years before Obamacare came about.

The point is that the right simply will not support anything proposed in this matter by Democrats. It is moot.

Which is why they should have went with the GOP ideas. It would have given the Democrats the long term victory. The GOP would have looked like total *******s while the Democrats, who didn't need to be bipartisan, look bipartisan. And in the event that if it failed, the Democrats would have had the high ground while the Republicans paid the price. Giving the Democrats far more room to reform health care the way they want while the GOP would have no credibility at all and no room to maneuver.

The SCOTUS may scoff at the administration saying it's a "tax," but most of the justices, including Roberts, were skeptical about the claim that the individual mandate could be separated and removed from the law as it is a stand-alone penalty.

Well come on dude. Even someone line me who opposes Obamacare will say that the argument trying to separate the mandate from the penalty was downright ******ed. I can't believe that they tried to do that. But Roberts is starting to look like a lost cause. Kennedy looks like he isn't fond of the individual mandate. And hell will freeze over before Scalia, Alito, or Thomas get behind the mandate. The legal scholars and moot courts that have been saying that we'll get an 8-1 decision are now eating their hats.

I think the court will uphold the law with a 5-4 or even 6-3 vote and it will be more campaign fodder for the coming general when we get the opinion in June or so.

I thought it was a 50-50 toss-up until today. This really came down to who had the best argument and Paul Clement did a vastly superior job to Donald Verrilli who had to rely on the liberal justices to defend the law for him.

 

[hippie_hunter]

These quotes from the liberal magazine Mother Jones says it best IMO on why the individual mandate would get struck down if it happens:

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

The months leading up to the arguments made it clear that the government would face this obvious question. The law's defenders knew that they had to find a simple way of answering it so that its argument didn't leave the federal government with unlimited power. That is, Obamacare defenders would have to explain to the justices why allowing the government to compel individuals to buy insurance did not mean that the government could make individuals buy anything—(say, broccoli or health club memberships, both of which Scalia mentioned). Verrilli was unable to do so concisely, leaving the Democratic appointees on the court to throw him life lines, all of which a flailing Verrilli failed to grasp.

Democratic appointees on the court, all of whom offered more persuasive defenses of the mandate than the man who had come to the court to do so.

If this does go down, I think the one to really blame is going to be the man who argued for it on the Court.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Republican ideas 20 years ago. The Republican Party of today is different than the Republican Party of the early 1990's.

They're still Republican ideas from a Democratic president. What ideas have the Republicans put forward after the 90s for health care reform, other than vouchers, that Obama didn't adopt into his own plan?

Or take a more recent Republican idea: the Bush tax cuts, which Obama extended despite overwhelming public support for letting tax cuts on the rich expire.

Still not enough? How about keeping Guantanamo Bay open? Attacking another country in the Middle East? Shielding torturers from prosecution?

I can't believe you're actually arguing that Obama wasn't bipartisan enough. Are you kidding? His constant bowing and kowtowing to the Republicans, despite having just won a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress with the electorate pointedly rejecting the Bush-era GOP, was painful to watch.

Obama's whole shtick is based on being Mr. Bipartisan, above it all, willing to take ideas from both sides in every debate. Every one of his speeches and books uses that trope. In saying Obama should have adopted more GOP ideas, you don't suggest anything that Obama wasn't already doing with sickening frequency.

 

[DACrowe]

These quotes from the liberal magazine Mother Jones says it best IMO on why the individual mandate would get struck down if it happens:







If this does go down, I think the one to really blame is going to be the man who argued for it on the Court.

I hadn't had time to read the reports of today's arguments. But having read several articles now...

My 6-3 prediction all of a sudden doesn't feel as strong. To be fair, the law got grilled similarly by several courts before being upheld but.....that was surprising. That's all I'll say for now.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I can't believe you're actually arguing that Obama wasn't bipartisan enough. Are you kidding? His constant bowing and kowtowing to the Republicans, despite having just won a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress with the electorate pointedly rejecting the Bush-era GOP, was painful to watch.

Obama's whole shtick is based on being Mr. Bipartisan, above it all, willing to take ideas from both sides in every debate. Every one of his speeches and books uses that trope. In saying Obama should have adopted more GOP ideas, you don't suggest anything that Obama wasn't already doing with sickening frequency.

Bowing to the Republicans? Are you serious. Any "Republican" concession Obama made was not to gain Republican support. He did it so he could gain the support of conservative Democrats.