2012 Tuesday: A Supreme (Court) moment for the election
A key moment in the 2012 presidential campaign happened yesterday. If you blinked, you may have missed it.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, struck down Obamacare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional. Yesterday was the deadline for the Obama administration to ask the entire appeals court to rehear the case, which comes from a lawsuit filed by Florida and joined by Georgia and 24 other states. The administration did not do so.
Instead, the administration will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court — which most likely would take the case, hear it and issue a ruling by the end of the court’s term, around late June or early July.
As in, roughly four months before the general election.
Whoa, Nellie.
Whatever the outcome — and the Supreme Court could uphold the law entirely (as some other federal courts have done), strike it down entirely (as the District Court did in the Florida case) or strike down part(s) of it (as the 11th Circuit did) — it’s bound to have an effect on President Obama’s re-election bid.
But what kind of effect? If the justices strike down all of the law, or even just key parts of it like the individual mandate, I have a hard time imagining that being positive for Obama. It’s not as if Democrats are positioned anytime soon to recapture a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate (60 seats). So, passing a modified version of Obamacare to put the law back on the books is pretty much out of the question. And I don’t think he’ll be able to convince his base otherwise.
Republicans and Republican-leaners — especially the tea-party faction — might suffer a little deflation from seeing one of their main objectives achieved. But the argument over the size and scope of government will continue and, unlike Democrats, the GOP would get momentum from a court victory and might be able to build upon it.
If the court upholds Obamacare, I could see the effects reversed, up to a point. Democrats would likely get an enthusiasm boost from seeing one of the president’s signature legislative achievements confirmed by the high court. Republicans might slump somewhat, but a GOP president could still do a lot to halt, slow down or modify implementation of the law — that’s one of the problems congressional Democrats created for themselves by leaving so much of the rule-making and final shape of the law in the hands of the secretary of Health and Human Services, and putting off so much of that activity until after the 2012 elections. Plus, the GOP could still campaign on “repeal and replace” more credibly than Democrats could campaign on “pass it again.”
A more open question, however, may be the effect this judicial process will have on the Republican nomination.
Mitt Romney has survived Rick Perry’s entry into the race in part because of Perry’s debate stumbles. But he’s also benefited from the inability of Perry and other Republican candidates to make Romney pay a political price for Romneycare law in Massachusetts. I’ve been amazed that Romney has been able to get by so far with his nuanced — some would say empty — defense of the distinctions between his law and Obama’s.
Say the Supreme Court holds arguments for the Obamacare lawsuits (it’s probable that they’ll merge the 11th Circuit case with those from elsewhere around the country) in February. How could it possibly help Romney to have health reform back at the forefront of the national political dialogue right when the primaries are heating up?
On the other hand, there’s a chance the nomination fight drags on inconclusively well into the spring. And the 2012 GOP Convention isn’t until late August…which is well after the Supreme Court likely will have rendered its decision. If the law is struck down entirely or in large part, might that remove a big cloud hanging over Romney? I don’t think the nomination will still be in doubt by late June/early July. But you never know.
My bet would be that the court case will help a non-Romney Republican both get the nomination and defeat Obama. In any case, yesterday’s decision to tee up a Supreme Court ruling before the election added more drama to what’s shaping up as an all-timer in American politics.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
109 comments Add your comment
commoncents
September 27th, 2011
10:59 am
first?
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
11:00 am
The only matter that will go before the Supreme Court will be the requirement to buy. One of three things will happen:
(1) The Supreme Court will hold that the case is moot because no one can show harm because no one has been forced to buy yet.
(2) The Supreme Court will find the whole law constitutional due to the recent broad readings of the Commerce Clause.
(3) The Supreme Court will find the mandatory purchase part is unconstitutional but leave the rest intact, leading to new legislation (or legislative attempts) at universal healthcare through the government without required purchase from a private entity.
I am betting on the first. Appellate courts love to punt.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
11:07 am
I see Candidate Cain supports the Chilean model for Social Security that includes a mandate to purchase disability and life insurance.
Where does he stand on the mandate in Obamacare?
commoncents
September 27th, 2011
11:08 am
Since the pres. admin. probably didn’t forget to appeal, I wonder what their strategy is? Is this lack of appeal accounted for in their “spending cuts”?
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
11:10 am
Why not write of improvements that could be made to the health care systems instead of gutter politics? Where are the GOP ideas , other than let the costs skyrocket and too bad if you can’t afford health care. Where is the effort?
Alabama Patriot
September 27th, 2011
11:11 am
The Supremes won’t hear the case, deferring to the 11th and stating (empahtically) why should we rule on this matter again?
This takes the Supremes out of the limelight for the election cycle, and leaves the 11th ruling intact. The country walks away a winner.
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
11:15 am
P.S. Obama IS appealling the 11th Circuit case to the Supreme Court. What they are not doing is asking for an en banc hearing (all the appellate circuit judges reconsidering the issue…normally only three appellate judges issue opinions, not all the appellate judges in the circuit) before they appeal to the Supreme Court.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
11:31 am
“I don’t think the nomination will still be in doubt by late June/early July.”
Kyle, I think this one goes to a brokered convention. Too many people in the race, and no clear winner going forward based on individual states. NH goes to Romney, SC likely goes to Perry (unless he is further marginalized), GA and FL are take six and pick ‘em, especially if Herman Cain is still in the race. Moderates are going to vote on the GOP side of the house next year in primaries, which keeps Romney in the lead, but not by much, while the rest of the more conservative candidates split the vote between two or three second tier candidates.
I think if this SCOTUS decision comes out early (and they will NOT punt this one, ElephantWhip), it might affect the primary election, but it will likely affect the general only, and the results of any potential brokered convention.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
11:33 am
“Where are the GOP ideas , other than let the costs skyrocket and too bad if you can’t afford health care.”
I guess you missed the whole “Senate is in Democrat hands and won’t pass anything the GOP sends over” part of class, didn’t you, Jefferson?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
11:35 am
“I see Candidate Cain supports the Chilean model for Social Security that includes a mandate to purchase disability and life insurance.
Where does he stand on the mandate in Obamacare?”
Nonsensical question.
Since the Chilean model is PRIVATIZED, they have every right to mandate coverage.
ByteMe
September 27th, 2011
11:37 am
I have a hard time imagining that being positive for Obama. It’s not as if Democrats are positioned anytime soon to recapture a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate (60 seats).
So imagine this: the SC strikes down the law. And Obama campaigns on universal single-payer health care and puts the GOP strongly on the other side of the equation. This is a net positive with Obama’s constituents from last election. It’s like the GOP relitigating gay marriage… it brings out the strongly motivated, which is what he needs to be re-elected.
On the flip side, the SC keeps the law as-is and Obama campaigns on his triumphs and warns that voting GOP is a sure way to lose the protection of the health care law.
I see it as a win either way for him, but not necessarily a win for the country if it’s struck down, being one of those millions who had a “pre-existing condition” and can now get an individual plan without hassles or excessive costs.
From a political perspective, the SC plays along by issuing a ruling 4+ months before the election and that creates an awesome talking point.
DJ
September 27th, 2011
11:39 am
The Republicans have no plan to manage health care costs (like they have no domestic policy plans). Their plan is to “let the free market decide” (as if we have a free market – something else republicans constantly mistake). The trouble is, the “free” market has decided – it has to continue to jack up health care costs annually at a rate that will bankrupt this country regardless of any other financial improvements we make. That’s a hell of a plan.
Why don’t republicans care about spiraling health care costs? “Lower taxes” won’t help that. “Deregulation” won’t help that. “Making abortion illegal” won’t help that. And since those are the only policies the Republicans have (besides redistricting, rewriting voting rules, and eliminating all consumer protections), how do they expect to deal with the problem? At least the democrats are trying to do something.
Seriously – what is the republican plan, besides sitting sitting on their hands while their income redistribution policies continue the 30+ years campaign to gut the middle class.
Seriously – what is their plan to control health care costs? (it’s not like we can choose not to, presuming you believe the vast majority of economists. Of course, not believing the economists is no trick when you don’t believe in science in general I suppose.)
Let them all die. There’s a plan.
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
11:41 am
Since the pres. admin. probably didn’t forget to appeal, I wonder what their strategy is?
They probably didn’t appeal or go through the long process of going from District to District, so that they can go straight to the Supreme Court for it’s decision.
Donna P.
September 27th, 2011
11:43 am
ObamaCare is one of many “issues” for President Obama in the election next year. Jobs, the economy, the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. are the more pressing issues. No matter what you think of him personally, his and his administration’s policies are not working and he doesn’t know what to do about that.
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
11:43 am
guess you missed the whole “Senate is in Democrat hands and won’t pass anything the GOP sends over” part of class, didn’t you, Jefferson?
Guess you missed the whole “Must Pass House Before Moving On To Senate” lesson in Civics class. They’re having a remedial class though starting in November. Not too late to sign up.
Pete
September 27th, 2011
11:44 am
A poll in June 2011 by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support Romneycare. Just 21 percent said they were against the law. Romney needs to be running on the popularity of his health care program except that Republican primary voters are opposed to health care for all. We are the only first world country in the world that does not have health care for all of its citizens. In fact, some of us cheer the fact that someone who does not have health care is being allowed to die.
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
11:48 am
ByteMe:
I think you’re right about the extremely strong talking point whichever way the Supreme Court goes.
Tiberius:
Although ByteMe pointed it out, his observation supports my theory that they will punt (especially if the conservative majority is as sold-out as some think). Why would they give Obama a soapbox to stand on. Romney would have trouble agreeing with the court because he supports universal healtcare in Mass. And Obama could frame Perry as a hypocrit who espouses Christian virtue but does not want to help those unable to afford healthcare.
Plain wrong
September 27th, 2011
11:54 am
In other news, Kyle placed a bet that pigs can, in fact, fly. He doubled down by placing another bet that they cannot fly if wearing lipstick. Conclusion (I’m betting): if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s stillna pig, but it can’t fly. Can’t wait for kyle’s next, bold, prognostibet.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
11:57 am
“Why don’t republicans care about spiraling health care costs?”
I guess you missed the 7 different bills filed in the last session by the GOP that were buried by the Democrat majority and never saw the light of day which addressed health care costs, DJ.
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
12:01 pm
Truth is the GOP has put forward no improvements. Anywhere in congress or by the flavor of the week crowd that wants to be president. Romney’s ideas are being shuttered due to fear. Why would anyone think it would not be just like last time they had total power, run up the bills, send kids to war, kill the economy?
Just like 2000-2008.
Because they said so ? Rehab ?
How about some ideas instead of darts.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
12:02 pm
O hateful one – the seven bills of which you speak consisted of the following:
1. Cut taxes
2. Cut regulations
3. Cut taxes and regulations
4. Cut taxes, then regulations
5. Cut regulations, then taxes
6. Kill poor people and blacks even if they aren’t poor
7. Make Obama fail
Steve - USA
September 27th, 2011
12:04 pm
Pete,
Go ahead and ignore the people who will die waiting for the government to OK their procedures.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
“Guess you missed the whole “Must Pass House Before Moving On To Senate” lesson in Civics class.”
Not so. In fact, I know far more about that legislative body tan you could ever hope to achieve, Debbie. I also know more about electoral politics than you ever will. I also know that you must “repeal” first, before you can “replace”, and while the repeal part has been passed by the House, it is once again stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate, therefore making any effort to pass any legislation to change health care a wasted effort.
ByteMe
September 27th, 2011
12:07 pm
Go ahead and ignore the people who will die waiting for the government to OK their procedures.
Steve, you go ahead and ignore the people who already die fighting with insurance companies to OK their procedures.
ByteMe
September 27th, 2011
12:09 pm
I also know that you must “repeal” first, before you can “replace”
Wrong. They can — and do — write a law to do anything they want. They don’t have ANY answer for “replace” other than “go back to what it was before.”
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:12 pm
KyleKyle, try some facts, not rhetoric.
I’d accuse you of lying but I don’t know what you actually know. I DO know what you DON’T know, however.
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
12:13 pm
Go ahead and ignore the people who will die waiting for
the governmenttheir HMO to OK their procedures.There! Fixed it for you! Don’t thank me, I do this out of love for my fellow man!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
“They don’t have ANY answer for “replace” other than “go back to what it was before.””
I guess you missed the 7 bills by the GOP in the last session buried by the Democrat majority that did much more than “go back to what it was before”.
Facts are such difficult things for you, aren’t they, ByteMe?
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
12:17 pm
In fact, I know far more about that legislative body tan you could ever hope to achieve, Debbie. I also know more about electoral politics than you ever will……blah, blah, blah………
Well, since this is an anonymous blog, and people can be anything their minds can dream up, I’m going to believe everything you just said! BTW I’d like to add that you’re probably as handsome as George Clooney, as built as Ahnald in his heyday, as smart as Clinton and as suave as Rico.
If you’re gonna make up a lie, it’s good to just go all out.
Ivan
September 27th, 2011
12:17 pm
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
12:02 pm
O hateful one – the seven bills of which you speak consisted of the following:
1. Cut taxes
2. Cut regulations
3. Cut taxes and regulations
4. Cut taxes, then regulations
5. Cut regulations, then taxes
6. Kill poor people and blacks even if they aren’t poor
7. Make Obama fail
——
Somebody call Cynthia Tucker. One of her acolytes has gone astray.
carlosgvv
September 27th, 2011
12:20 pm
So, it seems that five people could actually decide who our next president will be? Hey, is this a great Country or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
12:20 pm
I guess you missed the 7 bills by the GOP in the last session buried by the Democrat majority that did much more than “go back to what it was before”.
I did! Could you possibly LINK to the information so that I can read what those bills consisted of? I mean if they did 7 bills about “The urgency of using Tide when washing clothes in cold water”; or something similar then it would be more like “busy work” and not like actually trying to relate to the populace, fix a problem and/or have credible and reliable options to consider”, understand?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:21 pm
“A poll in June 2011 by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support Romneycare. Just 21 percent said they were against the law.”
Pete. Really. One, the poll was done in Massachusetts, the bluest of all blue states. What do you EXPECT them to say? Two, that 63% is DOWN from a high of 85% just 2 years ago. Three, doctors are leaving Mass. for states which do not regulate health care as much, causing a shortage of doctors, practices not accepting any new patients, and increased wait times for appointments.
And costs are STILL rising, plus the state is spending twice as much as originally planned just 6 years ago.
Good plan to run on, right?
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
O hateful one and his peon, Ivan the terrible – my sincerest apologies; I get my facts and news from the fox street journal and its mutant sister publication, fox news. Are they misdirecting me? I sure hope not given their ‘fair and balanced’ rhetoric.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
“I did!”
Color me shocked.
“Could you possibly LINK to the information so that I can read what those bills consisted of?”
No, because the bills are no longer submitted. You should have been paying attention during the health care debate, but you were too busy memorizing the talking points of the DNC to learn about the GOP bills.
But to summarize, they submitted tort reform (doctors estimate 30% of all health care costs are due to defensive medical testing), increased insurance pooling, plans available across state lines, expanded pools to help small businesses, elimination of pre-existing conditional rejection and no coverage cancellation.
Good enough for ya?
HDB
September 27th, 2011
12:32 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
Not quite true…..legislation CAN start in the Senate…then go to the House for passage/rejection…although it is normal for the converse to occur!!
ByteMe
September 27th, 2011
12:34 pm
Tiberius: that’s all just nonsense. Again. They’ve done studies on so-called “tort reform” (which is nothing more than “let the buyer beware, because the court can’t help you”) and found that at best it would take about 5% of the money out of the system, while further screwing individuals when doctors make a bad mistake. The insurance changes you mention won’t reign in healthcare costs at all, since that’s downstream of insurance companies and Medicare tends to be better at forcing down costs than health insurance companies. We already got elimination of pre-existing conditions and no cancellation of coverage, thanks to HCR.
So you are basically saying they got nothing significant to reign in healthcare costs.
But your arrogance is amusing.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
12:37 pm
O hateful one – in the real world, litigation amounts to substantially less than 1% of our current healthcare cost structure. And if the republicants were committed to “elimination of pre-existing conditional rejection and no coverage cancellation” [sic, with a burp, grunt and hiccup thrown in for good measure], why advocate wholesale repeal when they really like some of what the law provides. Yet again, your arguments collide head first with facts and reality. Sort of like the really really ugly guy with a squashed-in Pekingese-type face who got that way ‘cos he ran a 100-yard dash in a 50-yard gym.
ragnar danneskjold
September 27th, 2011
12:37 pm
I think Alabama Patriot @ 9:11 may be right on target. Lady Kaga has a conflict problem, one that will compel he to recuse herself. If the four conservatives and Justice Kennedy then determine to not hear the case, there will not be enough votes to hear it.
ragnar danneskjold
September 27th, 2011
12:38 pm
Dear Byte @ 12:34, “they” are not very good at statistics. Tort reform made a heck of a lot of difference in Texas.
Ivan
September 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
“KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
O hateful one and his peon, Ivan the terrible – my sincerest apologies; I get my facts and news from the fox street journal and its mutant sister publication, fox news. Are they misdirecting me? I sure hope not given their ‘fair and balanced’ rhetoric.”
Not just gone astray. This is one has fallen off cliff.
and carried out to sea.
Dearie
September 27th, 2011
12:44 pm
Good column Kyle!
HDB
September 27th, 2011
12:44 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
“…they submitted tort reform (doctors estimate 30% of all health care costs are due to defensive medical testing), increased insurance pooling, plans available across state lines, expanded pools to help small businesses, elimination of pre-existing conditional rejection …”
Tort reform would NOT work because it DENIES a person’s right to seek redress by a jury of his peers; the jury is the force that determines the probable judgment…and by limiting such judgments, you’re advocating the denial of due process!
Pooling would work ONLY if the pool encompasses ALL probabilities; if you focus on pooling like-minded entities, the risk won’t be evenly spread..and costs would be prohibitive for those in “high risk” illnesses!!
Plans across state lines won’t work because the insurance companies WON’T cover! Example: person in NY buys a health insurance policy in Mississippi…and discovers cancer; person goes to Sloan-Kettering in NY for treatment. MS policy would only pay MS rate…which is 30% of NY…person either goes in bankruptcy or dies. Same person purchases multiple policies to cover to cost differential; isnurance cmopanies argue as to which policy is PRIMARY…and neither pays!! Another example: person in GA gets ill in IA, sees PCP in IA which accepts GA insurance. GA insurance won’t pay!! (Has happened to ME!)!
These are problems that the GOP won’t address in their health care plans in deference to the insurance companies…….NOT good enough for me!!
BTW: Pre-existing rejection was eliminated under “ObamaCare”……
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
12:45 pm
No,
Color me shocked!!
because the bills are no longer submitted. You should have been paying attention ….blah, blah, blah…….blah,blah….blah.
Are you telling me that in this world of computers where nothing is EVAH deleted, this actually WAS?!?!?
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
12:47 pm
Lady Kaga has a conflict problem, one that will compel he to recuse herself
Clarence “Boot Straps” Thomas didn’t recuse himself when he ruled in favor of Monsanto a few years ago, (which btw I don’t recall any repubs getting all hot and bothered over that “error”in his judgement), so he in essence, has set a precedent. Deal with it.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:49 pm
“They’ve done studies on so-called “tort reform” (which is nothing more than “let the buyer beware, because the court can’t help you”) and found that at best it would take about 5% of the money out of the system, while further screwing individuals when doctors make a bad mistake.”
To ByteMe and KyleKyle, you really need to READ and UNDERSTAND more, rather than relying on talking points to make you failed replies.
The studies you’re talking about are LITIGATION costs which would go down. I am referencing a study by actual DOCTORS who make the claim that, because of litigation issues, they order many more tests than are absolutely necessary in order to AVOID litigation. 30% of the cost of health care today is because of doctors practicing defensive medicine against LAWSUITS, not defensive for the patient.
You two really need to quit while you’re behind.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
12:54 pm
“Are you telling me that in this world of computers where nothing is EVAH deleted, this actually WAS?”
Well, Debbie, if YOU think they still exist, feel free to find them.
Confused
September 27th, 2011
12:56 pm
…since that’s downstream of insurance companies and Medicare tends to be better at forcing down costs than health insurance companies…
Is that the same Medicare that is 1/3 fraud??
Wow.
1961_Boomer
September 27th, 2011
12:58 pm
On Romney:
Whether or not Obamacare is repealed or declared unconstitutional, the fact remains that we have a major problem with healthcare in this country. Yes, we can slam Romney for signing Romneycare into law. BUT, he did something. Which is better than any other Republican was willing to try to do.
So while you can damn Romney for RomneyCare, you can damn every other Republican for doing nothing. It was this “hear no evil, see no evil” attitude towards health care that contributed Obama to get elected in the first place. Any politician that wants to attack Romney and Obama better have a plan of their own, lest Romney trips them up in the debate.
“Yes, I signed Romney care into law. It is a flawed program and I probably wouldn’t do it again. By the way, what is YOUR plan for healthcare once ObamaCare is repealed?”
“Umm, ahh, hmmm….”
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
1:01 pm
O hateful one – which of these is false and which true (both spoken by a typical doctor in the USA today):
1. Insurance companies pay me by the test/procedure – therefore, I order more tests and procedures to be done.
OR
2. Even though I have (and am required by law to have) medical malpractice insurance, and even though I am a good doctor who has never committed a negligent act in my life, I order more tests/procedures because the sick/dying/in severe pain patient before me now is absolutely going to sue me and will absolutely do so if I don’t make them spend more on their healthcare than they have.
In the real world, 1 is true and 2 is false. In conservative fantasyland, 1 is false, 2 is true, no taxes and no regulations will solve all our problems, and Santa Claus is a real person.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:01 pm
“Tort reform would NOT work because it DENIES a person’s right to seek redress by a jury of his peers; the jury is the force that determines the probable judgment…and by limiting such judgments, you’re advocating the denial of due process!”
Wrong, tort reform does not DENY any rights. It just limits them to reasonable judgments.
“Pooling would work ONLY if the pool encompasses ALL probabilities; if you focus on pooling like-minded entities, the risk won’t be evenly spread..and costs would be prohibitive for those in “high risk” illnesses!!”
I suggest you read ALL of what I posted, HDB. Difficult for you to stray from the talking points I know, but try.
“Plans across state lines won’t work because the insurance companies WON’T cover! Example: person in NY buys a health insurance policy in Mississippi…and discovers cancer; person goes to Sloan-Kettering in NY for treatment. MS policy would only pay MS rate…which is 30% of NY…person either goes in bankruptcy or dies.”
Would they have gone to Sloan-Kettering today? No. Why would they try in the proposed change? They wouldn’t.
“Same person purchases multiple policies to cover to cost differential; isnurance cmopanies argue as to which policy is PRIMARY…and neither pays!!”
Fantasy.
“Another example: person in GA gets ill in IA, sees PCP in IA which accepts GA insurance. GA insurance won’t pay!!”
You don’t understand the whole “across state lines” thing, do you?
“BTW: Pre-existing rejection was eliminated under “ObamaCare”……”
And could well be overturned at the SCOTUS if the whole bill is struck down.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
1:02 pm
Ivan the terrible – nope, still here and with a functioning connection to the ‘internets’, to boot.
Politi Cal
September 27th, 2011
1:03 pm
Cert denied.
yuzeyurbrane
September 27th, 2011
1:09 pm
If the Supremes declare any part of the law unconstitutional, it is likely to only be the individual mandate; it is also just as likely they will uphold the law in its entirety. I disagree that Congress would not come up with a modification taking care of Supreme Court objections. There are traditional methods to encourage but not require the purchase of health insurance which would also meet the objections of many Republicans and independents.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:11 pm
“which of these is false and which true (both spoken by a typical doctor in the USA today):”
In the real world, 2 is the truthful answer (if they would answer truthfully in a public setting, which they will not).
They admit so.
Aurelius
September 27th, 2011
1:12 pm
“So, it seems that five people could actually decide who our next president will be? Hey, is this a great Country or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Yes it is! See Bush v Gore.
The Court will NOT refuse to hear the Obamacare cases. The Circuit Courts have already determined that all plaintiffs have standing.
Now the Court must decide what the Constitution says in regard to the Commerce Clause and mandatory requirements to
buy into the system. We already have “mandatory” in our laws and have for decades. So mandatory on its own is Constitutional. The question is on connecting “mandatory” and the Commerce Clause.
So far the Roberts court has been a “big government” court. So one would expect them to uphold Obamacare based on their prior thinking.
But it is an election year. And the Bush v Gore decision removed any pretense that the Supreme Court was “aloof” from the demands of party politics.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
1:18 pm
Tiberius
I don’t understand please explain.
Why is a mandate ok if the program is privatized? It remains a mandate.
In fact the program itself was mandated by the Pinochet government?
It does not seem to make sense? Seriously, can you please explain or point me to a source that will?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:19 pm
“And the Bush v Gore decision removed any pretense that the Supreme Court was “aloof” from the demands of party politics.”
Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want ALL ballots in a state counted using the SAME standards rather than cherry-picking the Democrat counties, now would we?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
“Why is a mandate ok if the program is privatized?”
Because it’s a private company.
theTruth
September 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
Candidate Cain and free markets, now I don’t care who you are that’s funny
Ol' Timer
September 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
@KyleKyleGoAway — My friend, you have hit the nail on the head.
The Republican/Tea Party has no strategy other than the rehearsing of Reagan’s Supply Economics which George Bush, Sr. aptly referred to as “voodoo economics.”
It didn’t work for Reagan and it hasn’t worked for anyone who tried it, yet for the Republican/Tea Party it is the cure-all for our economic issues.
The GOTP is bereft of ideas, so they rehearse Reaganomics and oppose anything the President proposes which is beginning to wear thin with those who have suffered most during this crisis.
At a time when the middle class is stressed to the limits, the upper class — the gazillionaires and big businesses — are prospering thanks to the largesse of the GOTP who have taken care of their constinuency — which by the way, ain’t the middle class.
HDB
September 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:01 pm
“Wrong, tort reform does not DENY any rights. It just limits them to reasonable judgments.”
It is the JURY that sets the judgment…AND to determine the reasonableness vs. the damage! If you LIMIT what the jury can do…you ARE denying due process for someone who seeks remedy from damages!!
““Pooling would work ONLY if the pool encompasses ALL probabilities; if you focus on pooling like-minded entities, the risk won’t be evenly spread..and costs would be prohibitive for those in “high risk” illnesses!!”
I suggest you read ALL of what I posted, HDB. Difficult for you to stray from the talking points I know, but try.”
I did….pooling, as advocated by Republicans, was to allow LIKE-MINDED entities to come together to purchase insurance. The problem is that by allowing ONLY pooling of like-minded entities, the costs of “high risk illnesses” won’t be evenly spread!! Not a talking point…but a systemic view!!
““Plans across state lines won’t work because the insurance companies WON’T cover! Example: person in NY buys a health insurance policy in Mississippi…and discovers cancer; person goes to Sloan-Kettering in NY for treatment. MS policy would only pay MS rate…which is 30% of NY…person either goes in bankruptcy or dies.”
Would they have gone to Sloan-Kettering today? No. Why would they try in the proposed change? They wouldn’t.” A person will seek the BEST MEDICAL ADVICE AVAILABLE; if that person deems Sloan-Kettering the best place to treat their affliction, don’t you thik that’s where that person would go!!?? If a MS policy only pays MS rates, that policy would be insufficient coverage for a NY situation!!
“Same person purchases multiple policies to cover to cost differential; isnurance cmopanies argue as to which policy is PRIMARY…and neither pays!!” Fantasy.” Not so!! This is PERSONAL experience!! I’ve WORKED in the insurance industry…and they will do everything to shift coverage to the other company!!
“Another example: person in GA gets ill in IA, sees PCP in IA which accepts GA insurance. GA insurance won’t pay!!” Another case from personal experience!!
What the GOP desires to do is to DENY due process by telling a jury what CAN’T be done rather than what the law should address!!
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
1:24 pm
@Aurelius – “the Roberts court has been a ‘big government’ court”? On a message board replete with almost nothing but complete factual inaccuracy and tautological scatology, you win the award for most boneheaded comment of the interwebs today. Two harrops and a hearty ‘good on ya’ for the effort.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
“If you LIMIT what the jury can do…you ARE denying due process for someone who seeks remedy from damages!!”
No, it does not.
MrLiberty
September 27th, 2011
1:26 pm
Thankfully Ron Paul will be getting the republican nomination and he supports a truly free market in health care. While his plan first involves HSAs, tax credits, freedom for insurance sales accross state lines, he fully recognizes the role licensing restrictions, insurance mandates and the heavy and oppressive hand the FDA has played in destroying the system of health care delivery in this country. Since he is clearly the only candidate that truly understands what a free market is, and supports it, he is best poised to introduce legislation and support legislation that will return one to this country. That would clearly be the best solution to our health care crisis. A supreme court decision is immaterial to Ron Paul. He will be fighting to restore our freedoms, regardless of the outcome.
Ron Paul 2012.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
1:28 pm
Tiberius
A private company running it? OK.
However isn’t it required for all Chilean citizens to enroll?
If so it becomes a mandate from a private company to the entire population to buy disability and life insurance. Why can a private company mandate the population to make a purchase but the government cannot?
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
1:30 pm
Mi Aureli:
The 3rd, 4th, and 9th Circuits dismissed for lack of standing. Others did not. Thus, a conflict exists between circuits on this issue, so it should be addressed. Whether the Supreme Court finds standing or not is a different issue, but it should be reviewed due to the conflict.
Aurelius
September 27th, 2011
1:34 pm
“Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want ALL ballots in a state counted using the SAME standards rather than cherry-picking the Democrat counties, now would we?”
That is not what the Court ruled in Bush v Gore. See the Chief Justice’s majority decision and his footnote on stare decisis re the case.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:40 pm
“That is not what the Court ruled in Bush v Gore.”
The effective result is that they did.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
1:53 pm
Tiberius?
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
2:02 pm
The effective result is that they did
Not it’s not. George Clooney/Ahnald/Clinton You might know civcs (sarc) but you don’t know anything about reading legal decisions.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
2:06 pm
“Not it’s not.”
Yeah, it was. They simply made sure that ALL the state was recounted in the same way. They didn’t rule that way, but the result was the same.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
2:06 pm
Tiberius
I can only assume at this point you are not a good source on this issue and will attempt to find someone who knows what they are talking about.
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
2:09 pm
Tiberius:
They STOPPED the recounting. They did not find that all precincts had counted in the same way or recounted the same way.
It’s not in the opinion, but, if you want to argue the ends justifies (and overlooks) the means on the ruling, it was this. The republican majority in the Supreme Court held that the republican secretary of state in Florida could shut the re-count down and send in the electoral votes to put a republican in office.
Ayn Rant
September 27th, 2011
2:24 pm
Can anyone explain why health care for all Americans is bad? The citizens of other developed countries have universal, no hassle health care coverage, and they live longer and are in better health at all stages of life. Why shouldn’t Americans? We can afford it: we’ve not a poor country; we’re just a poorly managed country.
Why do some Americans hate millions of other Americans they’ve never even met? Is it that many white Americans begrudge African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans the benefits of first class citizenship?
HDB
September 27th, 2011
2:27 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
“If you LIMIT what the jury can do…you ARE denying due process for someone who seeks remedy from damages!!”
No, it does not.”
Actua;;y, it does……you are stating that a jury of your peers can not make a reasoned AND reasonable decision based on the preponderance of the evidence. THAT runs counter to every constitutional protection afforded in the legal system. If a jury makes a decision based on the evidence presented, who are we as someone not privy to the evidence presented to state that the jury was unreasonable! Unpopular…yes…but not unreasonable!!
Independent
September 27th, 2011
2:42 pm
Pete
11:44 am
“We are the only first world country in the world that does not have health care for all of its citizens.”
Health care is available to everyone here in the US. I’m not aware of any law that says only certain people are allowed or disallowed healthcare. I think what you meant to say was that we are the only first world country that allows the moochers to get free healthcare while the rest of us pay for it.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
2:53 pm
“I can only assume at this point you are not a good source on this issue and will attempt to find someone who knows what they are talking about.”
No, you may not assume anything, lest you wish to live the results of same, ’cause you know what assume means, don’t you?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
2:59 pm
“The republican majority in the Supreme Court held that the republican secretary of state in Florida could shut the re-count down and send in the electoral votes to put a republican in office.”
One, there was no Republican majority in the SCOTUS. Politics do not play in their decisions, no matter how much your conspiracy theory cries for it.
Two, their ruling allowed the SOS to shut down a recount of ONLY selected Democrat-majority counties who were using a counting standard that was not used equally across the state. You have heard of “equal protection under the law”, haven’t you?
Three, EVERY objective independent recount has ruled that if the same standard was used across the state, Bush STILL would have won.
Nice try, but you libs need something else to cry about with Bush out of office. That particular dog hasn’t hunted since 2002.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:01 pm
“Why do some Americans hate millions of other Americans they’ve never even met?’
Why do losers always paint people they’ve never met who want equal responsibility across all spectra as haters?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:03 pm
“you are stating that a jury of your peers can not make a reasoned AND reasonable decision based on the preponderance of the evidence.”
Correct. See McDonalds v. the idiot who put a cup of coffee between her legs.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:05 pm
“Thankfully Ron Paul will be getting the republican nomination . . . ”
I didn’t realize that pigs were scheduled to fly sometime in 2012.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:08 pm
Tiberius, sweetheart – so much hate today. Much more than usual. Insurance company refuse to refill your anti psychotic meds? Poor, poor hate-filled one.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:14 pm
Ahhhh. The “you must be taking drugs” response.
Overdue, but all too typical.
And as usual, you fail to realize that I do not generate hate, I am a conduit for the hate you libs eventually spew when you get caught in your phony arguments.
Just as you always are.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:22 pm
Tibby, dear – I see, no denial, but rather unable to afford. Too bad you wont suck on the govt teat, even if only ’till you got better. Oh well, more hate for the world.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:25 pm
Tubby, darling – one more thing: you don’t see the (logical) inconsistency between you ‘not generating’ hate but nonetheless being ‘a conduit for the hate’ spewed by liberals. See? You do in fact generate hate. Tsk tsk.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:29 pm
KyleKyle, you need to brush up on your English language skills.
A conduit does not generate, but rather channels that which is generated.
Nice try, but another fail.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:36 pm
Tibby the hatemonger – and who is generating the hate that is flowing through your conduit? Why, none other than tibby the hate filled one. (I’d love to see you in a debate with rick the oil slick perry. It’d make a great, unscripted skit on snl)
Skip
September 27th, 2011
4:26 pm
Health care for everyone is so un American.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
KyleKyle, please detail any and all “hate” I have generated in my posts.
Please.
I need a laugh today.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
4:42 pm
O tibster ye full of hate – sorry but there isn’t enough time in the day. I leave you with this as my parting thought of the day (from the book of job): with hate in your heart ye shall remain but a hate filled serf to the master of nothing.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
4:43 pm
I accept your surrender, KyleKyle.
Come back when you can actually debate a valid point, rather than the drivel you so readily spew.
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
5:15 pm
Health cost is not something that just came up since 2008. What was the GOP doing when they had all 3 branchs of the gov’t. (2000-2006) I know the part D medicare cost a lot and bought a lot of votes, but why didn’t they attack the problem? At least Romney sees a problem, but now he has to shut up and toe the line.
Gordon
September 27th, 2011
5:37 pm
I don’t normally agree with Jefferson, but his 11:10 is right on.
Gordon
September 27th, 2011
5:38 pm
…and his 5:15.
I don’t like most Democrat ideas, but Republicans spend too much time saying what they won’t do rather than what they will do.
CJ
September 27th, 2011
5:41 pm
RE: “My bet would be that the court case will help a non-Romney Republican both get the nomination and defeat Obama.”
Ppposition to the health care law is not as dominant as Republican critics would have us believe. Polls continue to show that supporters and critics are about evenly divided, and when drilling down into the data, a significant number of the critics don’t like the law because it’s not liberal enough (e.g., no option for non-seniors to buy into Medicare [aka: "Medicare for All"]).
In addition, when asked about the actual provisions of the health care law, its generally found that most people support these provisions–prevents personal bankruptcy caused by health care costs by eliminating coverage limits and capping out-of-pocket payments, eliminates ability to deny coverage or charge more due to pre-existing conditions, reduces the cost of Medicare (the main driver of long-term deficits) by eliminating waste,…
Hopefully these benefits will be reiterated during the election campaign, and I would suggest that Democrats run on passing Medicare for All. Health insurance is still unaffordable for millions, and Republican ideas for improving the system only improve the system for insurers and providers, but at the expense of you and me.
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
5:51 pm
Thanks, Gordon. I wouldn’t expect many to agree with my posts and many times I’m just trying to provoke thought. If everyone was the same, the commies might have something, but because of that fact, it just don’t work and was destined to fail.
Mo'Nique
September 27th, 2011
5:53 pm
“Whatever the outcome … it’s bound to have an effect on President Obama’s re-election bid.”
Nah, at this point it’ll be like ObamaCare never even happened. Going into the next election with a 9%+ national unemployment rate and the U.S. economy on the ropes he’ll be history.
@@
September 27th, 2011
7:28 pm
Early in the health care debate, Republicans were asking Obama to slow down…there were things within the bill they could agree on and things they found unacceptable. They, too, saw room for reform but were opposed to a complete overhaul. They offered their own proposals…Obama and the dems would have none of them.
Talk about in over his head. Obama went for a watered down version of what his base wanted and is in the process of drowning in his mistakes.
Streetracer
September 27th, 2011
7:49 pm
Don’t know if many are still here, but I’ll offer a few comments.
1. To answer Ayn Rant @ 2:24 – Part of the reason that health care outcomes aren’t as good here as in Europe has to do with demographics. I have relatives that would have to drive about 8 miles to get to a county road (where their mailbox is), another 8 – 9 miles to a paved road 10 miles or so to a place where there are enough houses in sight of each other that one might call it a “town”, another 10 miles or so to a town big enough to have a doctor. So a trip to the doctor means pretty much all day (unless its winter, and there’s a foot and a half of snow, which would make the trip longer). So that is a day when the livestock doesn’t get fed, and the crops don’t get tended, and they are losing their livlyhood. One has to be pretty bad off before he does that. But many health conditions are easy to cure in early stages, but much harder later. The US has a lot more people in that situation than europe.
2. As far as the 2000 election, if Gore had won his home state, Florida would not have mattered. He is, I believe the Presidential candidate in my lifetime (fairly long) to not win his home state.
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
9:10 pm
Whoever is the president in Jan 2013 will have a 9% unemployment number likely and to blame them would be just wrong, but it incites.
buck@gon
September 27th, 2011
10:24 pm
Kyle,
If the Court upholds the law, I think you’re wrong Kyle. There will be one enormous bunch of pissed-off people (including me), and I think it goes against Obama, and against Congress like some sort of amplified blowback.
Besides, before the law passed, Obama didn’t make the case. He simply bullied and threatened enough people to pass it as obliquely as he seemed to do in public. Since it has passed, no one has even wanted to go to bat for it and defend it, except Obama himself and Pelosi. So many egg-on-the-face incidents occured in the struggle to get it passed, (eg., “we’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it”; “bending the cost curve”; and “healthcare issues are economic issues”) that I think it would be far better for all liberals and Obama supporters if the whole healthcare thing just disappeared behind a magician’s curtain until full implementation in 2014. I think bringing this up reminds the country who the president is, and it reinforces the final Republican candidates pledge to rid us not just of the bill, but the stink of it too.
It won’t go away now; it’s Obama’s “quagmire”, and that’s what makes me say, Oh Yeah baby!
buck@gon
September 27th, 2011
10:40 pm
Jefferson,
Why not write of improvements that could be made to the health care systems instead of gutter politics? Where are the GOP ideas , other than let the costs skyrocket and too bad if you can’t afford health care. Where is the effort?
I could make a great “effort” to build a bridge, but if it collapses and kills someone, I’m not going to get much credit for my “effort.”
Congress and the federal government have many problems to address. At the top of their list are constitutionally mandated duties long neglected by Democrats especially. The Congress and Obama, in fact, have not passed a budget since Obama was elected.
That’s embarassing and plainly wrong.
As for healthcare, there have been many proposals by Republicans that include removing federal and state mandates to care to open the markets for private innovation. But if your desired solution is of the federal one-size-fits-all healthcare plan., ie., Britain, Canada or some other socialized command healthcare economy, those plans WILL NOT be offered by conservatives, and ONLY those kinds of plans will be offered by Democrats.
That is why, when it comes to healthcare solutions, the only real debate has gone on along the right side of the aisle since all of this mess started. As for the solution, are you really giving Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama credit for “passing something,” or more explicitly the we’ll-know-what’s-in-it-after-we-pass-it bill?
Given Congress’ constitutional duties, and despite the “effort”, their “accomplishment” sounds pretty rash and foolish to me, does it to you, Jefferson?
Somehow I wonder how much we appreciate their “effort” while we are all applying our own efforts earnestly to stay gainfully employed under increasing costs, creeping government influence, an over-regulating EPA.
Tell us, if the oceans do rise anyway, will you give Obama credit for his “effort” once again?
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2011
6:13 am
Your Idiot Messiah didn’t inherit 9% unemployment. He created it and implemented policies that kept it there going on three years. Our next president will likely inherit 9% but, assuming it’s an American, er, Republican (same thing), he will naturally favor policies that will correct the mistakes of the past three years.
HDB
September 28th, 2011
7:28 am
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:03 pm
” “you are stating that a jury of your peers can not make a reasoned AND reasonable decision based on the preponderance of the evidence.”
Correct. See McDonalds v. the idiot who put a cup of coffee between her legs.”
So does this also mean that anyone who is sentenced to DEATH by a jury of his peers did not make a reasoned and reasonable decision from the evidence presented?? You CAN extrapolate your reasoning to include this also!!!
As I said…the ruling may be UNPOPULAR…but it IS reasonable to a jury under the scope of the evidence presented!! Can’t have it both ways, T!!
HDB
September 28th, 2011
7:30 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2011
6:13 am
“Your Idiot Messiah didn’t inherit 9% unemployment….”
Actually, he DID!! The recession of 2007-8 was the genesis of 9% unemployment…..lest you forget that unemployment is a LAGGING indicator of the economy!!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 28th, 2011
8:17 am
“So does this also mean that anyone who is sentenced to DEATH by a jury of his peers did not make a reasoned and reasonable decision from the evidence presented??”
Possibly. Your point being . . .?
One difference is that criminal trials for murder require unanimous agreement, while civil trials do not, meaning that criminal juries usually get it right.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
September 28th, 2011
8:30 am
Will it not be a glorious day for us all once the key provision of the healthcare legislation is smitten by the conservative supremes. Finally, insurance companies will be freed to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions and to rescind insurance policies on a whim and to increase premiums more frequently and to increase premiums for whatever reason without needing to worry about how much of a policyholder’s premium is actually used to provide insurance. Free market capitalism shall once again rule over healthcare as it was intended per our great constitution. Rejoice brethren.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 28th, 2011
8:44 am
Ah, I see the rhetorical flowers are in full bloom this morning . . .