PDA

View Full Version : Appeals Court Strikes Down the Individual Mandate


Shodan
08-12-2011, 05:01 PM
Cite (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/12/us-appeals-court-rules-against-obamas-health-care-law/).

The court said that this part of Obamacare "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

Questions for discussion:

- How will this affect health care costs?

- How will this affect Obama's re-election prospects? His health care reforms were one of the few things he actually got done.

Discuss.

Regards,
Shodan

Oakminster
08-12-2011, 05:12 PM
Too soon to tell. There is now a split between Circuit Courts of Appeal (think the one in Cincinnati ruled it was constitutional and yet another Court is expected to rule relatively soon), so SCOTUS will likely have to settle it.

Shodan
08-12-2011, 05:19 PM
How soon do you think it will make it to SCOTUS? October 2011?

Regards,
Shodan

Oakminster
08-12-2011, 05:42 PM
Depends on what you mean by "make it to SCOTUS"...some papers may be filed by then, but I would not expect an actual decision on the merits from them in 2011.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 05:47 PM
The irony is that single payer would have had no Constitutional issues at all, and been much more effective. This is what comes of compromising with right wing zealots.

Gangster Octopus
08-12-2011, 06:31 PM
They also ruled that the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the Health Care Act, so the rest of the Health Care Act stands.

marshmallow
08-12-2011, 06:45 PM
This is what comes of compromising with right wing zealots.

You mean this is what happens when you elect those in the pocket of insurance companies.

alphaboi867
08-12-2011, 07:59 PM
Depends on what you mean by "make it to SCOTUS"...some papers may be filed by then, but I would not expect an actual decision on the merits from them in 2011.

Replace 2011 with 2012 and a rulling released in the summer of 2013. That's if the case moves quickly.

Grumman
08-12-2011, 08:24 PM
This is what comes of compromising with right wing zealots.
It's not a compromise if you're trying to placate the other side by unilaterally adding things they openly hate.

Bryan Ekers
08-12-2011, 08:33 PM
What is "Obamacare" exactly, and how is it different from whatever preceded it?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 08:38 PM
"Obamacare" was originally a Republican alternative to single payer. It's a conservative, insurance company friendly plan which was originally proffered by Bob Dole as an alternative to HillaryCare. The Republicans only "hated" it this time around because they didn't want to give Obama any kind of victory.

DSeid
08-12-2011, 08:52 PM
... The Republicans only "hated" it this time around because they didn't want to give Obama any kind of victory.Tape from the GOP's secret Marxist strategy meeting. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0)

Left Hand of Dorkness
08-12-2011, 08:56 PM
I will assume that your questions are predicated on this law's thorough judicial defeat before the election.- How will this affect health care costs?
I expect they will continue to rise, without any meaningful reform, and working stiffs will continue to get shafted.
How will this affect Obama's re-election prospects? His health care reforms were one of the few things he actually got done.
I don't know. On the one hand, folks who want meaningful reform will be exasperated by a perception that the law was basically scuttled by Republicans (yes, if we make the necessary assumption, it'll actually be scuttled by judges, but of course the perception will be, right or wrong, that Republicans are behind the court cases). On the other hand, people who are Tea Party types will be thrilled to see the law fall apart.

There may be some folks who see it as evidence of Obama's inefficacy. I don't know how many that'll be.

Overall, though, I think the economy will continue to be the big story. If it continues, as it appears likely to, to continue to suck, a Republican who can plausibly claim to be unconnected to its continued suckitude will have a good shot at election.

The more interesting question, in my mind, is not how it affects the horse race, though. The more interesting question is where we should go from here. In addition to thinking we should go single-payer, I also want a pony.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-12-2011, 09:00 PM
"Obamacare" was originally a Republican alternative to single payer. It's a conservative, insurance company friendly plan which was originally proffered by Bob Dole as an alternative to HillaryCare. The Republicans only "hated" it this time around because they didn't want to give Obama any kind of victory.

That's an -- interesting view of the situation.

My view would be that the Republicans only ever floated it as the lesser of two evils compared to HillaryCare, and always preferred doing nothing over either. My view explains why the GOP didn't promptly vote for the Dole plan during all the years they held the House and Senate and Presidency after Clinton left office: they didn't actually want it then, sure as they never really wanted it before and merely kept on not wanting it after. How does your view explain such an otherwise remarkable lapse?

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 09:01 PM
I don't think anybody is going to switch from Obama to whatever monster the GOP ends up nominating because the individual mandate is tied up in appellate courts. It doesn't affect the rest of the legislation anyway.

Grumman
08-12-2011, 09:09 PM
It doesn't affect the rest of the legislation anyway.
The rest of the legislation is fundamentally flawed - that's why they needed the mandate in the first place.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 09:19 PM
That's an -- interesting view of the situation.

My view would be that the Republicans only ever floated it as the lesser of two evils compared to HillaryCare, and always preferred doing nothing over either. My view explains why the GOP didn't promptly vote for the Dole plan during all the years they held the House and Senate and Presidency after Clinton left office: they didn't actually want it then, sure as they never really wanted it before and merely kept on not wanting it after. How does your view explain such an otherwise remarkable lapse?
I agree they were lying about wanting to do anything at all, but that doesn't alter the fact that they pretended to support this before they opposed it.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-12-2011, 09:29 PM
I agree they were lying about wanting to do anything at all, but that doesn't alter the fact that they pretended to support this before they opposed it.

Again, my view is that they weren't pretending to prefer the stuff in question over HillaryCare; they genuinely preferred it over HillaryCare, though they genuinely preferred doing nothing to either. Is that your view as well?

UltraVires
08-12-2011, 09:51 PM
They also ruled that the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the Health Care Act, so the rest of the Health Care Act stands.

What a nightmare that would be, though. The insurance company can't deny me for a pre-existing condition, but I'm not required to purchase it. If I am 24 and healthy, why buy insurance? If I am in a car wreck, then I'll have my next of kin purchase a policy for me while the police are extracting me from the wreckage.

Nobody will buy insurance until they are in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. The only people carrying insurance will be deathly ill. It would be like being able to purchase fire insurance when you see your house burning down. The whole system will collapse.

Bryan Ekers
08-12-2011, 09:53 PM
Can I get a serious no-bullshit answer to "what is Obamacare?"

MOIDALIZE
08-12-2011, 10:02 PM
Can I get a serious no-bullshit answer to "what is Obamacare?"

Dio pretty much had it. It was largely based on ideas developed by the Heritage Foundation. Individuals will be required to have health insurance, either from their employer or by purchasing it themselves. I think there's supposed to be subsidies for those who can't afford to buy a plan themselves. The reform also included a bunch of other reforms, including preventing insurance companies from denying people for having a pre-existing condition, and creating a federal review board to approve proposed rate increases (some states have such a review process, but not all states do). It was basically a big, messy, complicated compromise that sought to improve access and limit costs while not putting the private health insurance industry out of business.

Honestly, I support healthcare reform, and I understand why there has to be an individual mandate, but I'm against being required to purchase a health insurance policy from the private sector. Yeah, yeah, car insurance, I know, but I can go without a car if I want.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 10:06 PM
Again, my view is that they weren't pretending to prefer the stuff in question over HillaryCare; they genuinely preferred it over HillaryCare, though they genuinely preferred doing nothing to either. Is that your view as well?
No, my view is that they have never given any kind of shit about health care reform at all and are completely in the pockets of the insurance companies. Still, they are the ones who first presented the plan passed under Obama and pretended to support it, so opposition now shows that they were lying the first time.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 10:10 PM
Honestly, I support healthcare reform, and I understand why there has to be an individual mandate, but I'm against being required to purchase a health insurance policy from the private sector. Yeah, yeah, car insurance, I know, but I can go without a car if I want.
The thing is, people who can afford health care and don't purchase it are basically choosing to suck off the public tit exponentially more when they do get sick, or get in a car accident or whatever. They aren't off the grid just because they aren't purchasing coverage. They're just choosing to ride on the wagon instead of helping to push it.

MOIDALIZE
08-12-2011, 10:15 PM
The thing is, people who can afford health care and don't purchase it are basically choosing to suck off the public tit exponentially more when they do get sick, or get in a car accident or whatever. They aren't off the grid just because they aren't purchasing coverage. They're just choosing to ride on the wagon instead of helping to push it.

Maybe, but how do you define "afford"? If most individually purchased policies are a ripoff, can we really blame people for wanting to risk it?

Supporters of the reform have all claimed that once it goes into effect and turns out to be not such a big deal to abide by, we'll all look back and wonder what got us so worked up in the first place, which basically concedes that we'll all have to see it to believe it. That doesn't leave me feeling very hopeful.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-12-2011, 10:35 PM
No, my view is that they have never given any kind of shit about health care reform at all and are completely in the pockets of the insurance companies. Still, they are the ones who first presented the plan passed under Obama and pretended to support it, so opposition now shows that they were lying the first time.

Do you truly not understand how this works? When faced with something appalling, they reluctantly but honestly offered a compromise they truly would've preferred. They weren't "lying the first time"; they weren't pretending to prefer Option B if forced to choose between that and Option A, they were entirely serious. As it happens, they also preferred D to C, and C to B, sure as they preferred B to A; so what?

Let's say you kidnap my child and offer me the classic choice: your kid dies unless you pay the ransom. In the face of something so appalling, I'd genuinely rather pay up -- it's the lesser of two evils -- though I'd rather both options were off the table; ideally my kid would be fine and you wouldn't get a nickel, but I'll of course settle for B over A, even though C beats B sure as B beats A. Are you going to say I was "lying the first time" if my preferences work that way? Will you say I was pretending even though I can assure you I was sincere?

You see someone about to be punched in the face, and hear a scream to the effect of "at least hit me where the bruises won't show." Would they rather not be hit at all? Presumably. Are they lying when they express a preference for one blow over another? I just don't see it.

smiling bandit
08-12-2011, 10:44 PM
I don't think anybody is going to switch from Obama to whatever monster the GOP ends up nominating because the individual mandate is tied up in appellate courts. It doesn't affect the rest of the legislation anyway.

Oh, but it will, in spades. Without the Individual Mandate, it's a complete fiscal failure. Actually, it was anyway, but this is a faster resolution. At this point, it doesn't really matter how you claim to "patch" it. Without the mandate, it's not affordable.

Shodan
08-12-2011, 11:39 PM
What is "Obamacare" exactly, and how is it different from whatever preceded it?I never understood the rhetorical advantage in this line of argument.

Diogenes tried it in a Pit thread recently. It was pretty clear what he was up to, but I don't see how it makes any sense to use in a serious discussion.

I can't believe you don't really know the provisions of the bill. What do you think the appeals court was talking about?

Regards,
Shodan

Inbred Mm domesticus
08-12-2011, 11:40 PM
Can I get a serious no-bullshit answer to "what is Obamacare?"

That's really a great question because too often the legislation is discussed in terms of this mandate that all individuals must have health insurance. If you look at the rest of the legislation, it requires a number of reforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act); some of the best of these are:

1) Expanded Medicaid eligibility
2) Subsidizing healthcare premiums up to 400% of poverty level. Wikipedia provides an example table for a family of 4. $4000 a year for a family of 4 at $54,000 is competitive with what people get now through their employer. Most people making around $54,000 would be covered by their employer in this country. People making much less will get their insurance premiums covered via tax credit. Excellent.
3) State health insurance exchanges.
4) No consideration of most pre-existing conditions with premiums tied to age only.
5) Preventative maintenance without co-pays.
6) Removal of coverage caps.

Its not what most of the other great countries in this world (e.g. Canada) have, but its a great improvement over what we have now. The individual mandate only sweetens it because of the extra money rolling in to support the plan.

My personal legislative goal is to be taxed for my healthcare so that my only consideration when going to see the doctor is "Should I go see the doctor that I find conveniently located near me?".

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 11:41 PM
Do you truly not understand how this works? When faced with something appalling, they reluctantly but honestly offered a compromise they truly would've preferred.
They weren't faced with anything appalling. They were faced with a practical solution to a problem with which it was (and still is) in their own selfish interests to perpetuate. There's no ideology behind their opposition, just self-serving greed and careerism.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-12-2011, 11:43 PM
I never understood the rhetorical advantage in this line of argument.

Diogenes tried it in a Pit thread recently. It was pretty clear what he was up to, but I don't see how it makes any sense to use in a serious discussion.

I can't believe you don't really know the provisions of the bill. What do you think the appeals court was talking about?
In point of fact, there is no such thing as "Obamacare."

Sam Stone
08-12-2011, 11:49 PM
Wow, this attempt to turn a plan the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote in the Senate into "a Republican Plan" tells me one thing - you guys are running from it as fast as you can because you know it's a godawful mess.

To give a better answer to Brian Ekers, here are the fundamentals of the plan:

1. The government sets up public insurance exchanges to cover people who can't get health care insurance through their employers.

2. The government disallows insurance companies from refusing anyone who has pre-existing conditions. Or perhaps that only applies to the exchanges - I can't remember.

3. The government fines employers who do not provide health care insurance for their employees $2000 dollars per employee, per year. This money helps finance the exchanges. Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from this requirement.

4. Punishment for weak employer plans. To prevent employers from offering very weak coverage insurance to avoid the penalties, the government stipulates that if even a single employee leaves an employer-provided plan for the exchanges, the employer can be fined $3000 for every employee - not just the one who left.

5. Tax credit for employers. The government will provide up to $40 billion in tax credits to employers who want to offer health care coverage to their employees.

6. Price Controls. A new health care advisory board will require all rate increases for insurers to be approved by them.

7. Mandatory coverage. All citizens age 26 and above will be required to buy health insurance, either from a private insurer or from the exchanges. People below 26 years of age can seek coverage under their parent's health plans.

8. Low income aid: To allow people to afford the mandatory coverage, the government will provide financial aid for health insurance, indexed to income. People with incomes up to $80,000 will be eligible for health insurance supplements, but only if they get their insurance from the public exchanges. If their employer provides coverage, they get nothing.

All of this is promised to cost about a trillion dollars over ten years. And we all know government estimates of the cost of new programs are right on the money.

To pay for this new system, revenue will be raised in the following ways:


Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Require information reporting on payments to corporations: $17.1 billion
Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: 15.2 billion
Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion


That gets you almost half of the way there. The other half of the costs are supposed to be clawed out of the Medicare system in the form of cuts to doctor reimbursements and finding savings by cutting 'waste, fraud, and abuse'. And we all know those kinds of promised cuts always happen.

If I were a Democrat right now, I'd be trying to accelerate this lawsuit to the Supreme Court, hoping that they strike down the whole mess. Because this bill is a disaster. It's probably a major factor holding back job creation right now. Businesses are terrified of this, because it is just riddled with unknowns and is going to have a major distortionary effect on the economy.

Notice that there is $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies, plus they are being forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions, plus the cost of medical devices is going up by $20 billion and non-generic drugs by $27 billion, plus insurers will be forced to pay for the children of insurees up to the age of 26. These are all new cost drivers for insurance. How much are businesses that currently offer health insurance going to see their rates increase by? No one knows.

We do know that price controls are a giant fail. If the government caps the amount insurers are allowed to charge, but dumps new fees and mandates on them, it could drive the health insurance business underwater. Shortages are always the inevitable result of price controls. Some cynics have suggested that this is a back-door way to get to a single payer system - make everything except the government exchanges unaffordable. But even if that doesn't happen, there could be shortages. Some companies may not be able to find insurance for their employees, which could open them up to fines.

This program is going to heavily distort the economy in strange ways. For example, if you're a company with 49 employees, the marginal cost of that 50'th employee is through the roof because hiring that person will require that you then provide health insurance for everyone, or you'll pay $40,000 per year in penalties (the law allows you to skip the charge for the first 30 employees, so you'll pay $2,000 X 20, per year). That's going to kill jobs in the very sector we rely on to create the most - growing businesses.

As another example: Let's say you make skis. You have a large, labor-intensive manufacturing system, and you employ 1000 people. Your competitor invested a few hundred million in automation for his skis, so his capital costs are higher but he only employs 100 people. The two of you are competitive, and have about the same market share. But along comes Obamacare, and suddenly your company is hit by a fine of $2,000 per employee, so your bottom line costs just went up by $200,000, while your competitor's only went up by $20,000. Now you can't compete as well, and you lose market share.

Or, consider two large companies. One pays its employees on average $4,000 per month, plus health care benefits. The other has made a different deal with employees - it pays them an average of $4500 per month, but they pay for their own health care. But now, this company is also getting fined $2,000 per employee. Can it just roll back salaries to compensate? Probably not. Wages are sticky. People's expenses grow to match their wages. It's always hard to roll them back. So suddenly the second company is at a disadvantage, even though both gave their employees equal compensation before the health care law came along.

And so it goes. Companies with high income employees will be at a disadvantage over companies with low income employees, because the second company gets an implicit subsidy because the employees get tax credits for their health care. Even worse, these changes will affect prices in the supply chain, and since no one knows the details of their suppliers' labor negotiations, no one really knows how this is going to change the price mix and their competitiveness and market share.

Then there's the big unknowns. Let's say you offer health care today. Is it good enough? It has to be good enough that none of your employees will seek out the exchanges, or you're going to get hit with massive fines. But the health exchanges haven't been set up yet, and the rules and coverage schedules haven't been written, so no one knows.

Would you hire people today if you had no way of knowing if they were going to cost you $3,000 per year more in 2014? Would you increase your workforce now if you knew there was a chance that you were going to be put at a competitive disadvantage in the market in 2014, and that disadvantage will be worse with each employee you hire?

The CBO originally scored this as deficit neutral, but that's no longer true. Actually it wasn't true then either, because the Democrats cooked the books to get the CBO score by front-loading taxes and back-loading benefits. But it's no longer true even under the CBO formulation. The 1099 form requirement has been dropped. The 'gold-plated insurance' plan has been dropped under pressure from the unions. No one believes the $500 billion in savings from Medicare will ever materialize. But even if that savings did, it could just as easily have been taken from there and applied to the deficit. What this plan does is soak up all the 'low-hanging fruit' where budgets could have been cut, making future budget reductions in health care that much harder.

Obama has already deferred the cuts to doctor's payments twice. But if he does cut them, the net effect will be the same as what happened to medicaid - doctors will stop treating people who fall under this plan. Even worse (and the reason why various states are now returning the seed money for setting up exchanges), if the cuts completely go through, doctors would get paid more under medicaid. This means that more people may wind up being forced into medicaid to get treatment - and the states have to pay a big chunk of that. So the federal government's books look okay, but the states get clobbered.

I could go on all day. This stupid plan is going to slam into the economy like a drunken sailor, causing unintended consequences everywhere. We've already seen it with the 1099 reporting. Boston Scientific, a medical device manufacturer, has already announced its closing its American manufacturing and moving it to China to avoid the mandates and new excise taxes. The Obama White House has already issued about a thousand temporary waivers to various businesses, because the rules set up for 2011, 2012, and 2013 turned out to be unrealistic.

Oh, and if the individual mandate is shot down by the courts, this thing is dead. Without that, a huge part of the funding mechanism for this - the requirement for healthy, young people to pay in - will vanish. If you can't be turned away for pre-existing conditions and the amount insurance providers can charge is capped, the obvious strategy for everyone would be to go uninsured until they get sick or injured, then sign up. That destroys the entire insurance model.

Diogenes the Cynic
08-13-2011, 12:00 AM
It was Bob Dole's plan, dude. Dole was a Republican. No attempt was made to pass a Democratic bill. There are no Democrats any more. Just Republicans, right wing Republicans and teabaggers.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-13-2011, 12:01 AM
They weren't faced with anything appalling. They were faced with a practical solution to a problem with which it was (and still is) in their own selfish interests to perpetuate. There's no ideology behind their opposition, just self-serving greed and careerism.

You're shifting the goalposts: the claim was that they were lying and pretending, not that they were acting in their own interests. (Though if you're right about that, then aren't you merely explaining why they would've found the alternative appalling?)

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-13-2011, 12:02 AM
It was Bob Dole's plan, dude. Dole was a Republican.

Was he the Republican who saved us from HillaryCare?

Chronos
08-13-2011, 12:17 AM
Things'll get really, really interesting if activist judges strike down the individual mandate, but the rest of Gingrichcare stays intact. Since nobody will have any incentive to buy insurance until they need it, how will the insurance companies stay in business? Clearly, the insurance companies will want to avoid this situation, but how? Their pet legislators won't be able to use their usual tactic of obstructionism, since if they do nothing, the insurance-killing goes into effect.

Bryan Ekers
08-13-2011, 12:20 AM
I can't believe you don't really know the provisions of the bill. What do you think the appeals court was talking about?

I'm Canadian, Yank. I have no memories of not having government health care, but I've noted that Americans on this board and on their various punditfests throw around the term "Obamacare" a lot and I figured it was high time I got a straightforward factual summary of what exactly it entails, and I thank Inbred Mm domesticus for giving me a starting point.

smiling bandit
08-13-2011, 12:25 AM
It was Bob Dole's plan, dude. Dole was a Republican. No attempt was made to pass a Democratic bill. There are no Democrats any more. Just Republicans, right wing Republicans and teabaggers.

This is why I love you, Dio: your sense of humor. Oh, I know it's not intentional. Well, the massive distortion field you maintain at all times in roder to get through the day is. But on the surface you actually believe it, and that's hilarity for ya's.

MOIDALIZE
08-13-2011, 12:44 AM
I'm Canadian, Yank. I have no memories of not having government health care, but I've noted that Americans on this board and on their various punditfests throw around the term "Obamacare" a lot and I figured it was high time I got a straightforward factual summary of what exactly it entails, and I thank Inbred Mm domesticus for giving me a starting point.

You're welcome.

Cyberhwk
08-13-2011, 01:40 AM
Things'll get really, really interesting if activist judges strike down the individual mandate, but the rest of Gingrichcare stays intact. Since nobody will have any incentive to buy insurance until they need it, how will the insurance companies stay in business?
That is why I'm not sure a SCOTUS decision along the lines of the 11th Circuit's thinking would be all that bad for Democrats. It could force Congress to revisit HCR while the provisions that were upheld could give Democrats a great position to bargain from. Break up the bill into it's constituent parts and the bill, the mandate not withstanding, polled reasonably well. These are the parts the GOP would be having to oppose if the mandate is ruled severable and Republicans still insist on full repeal.

Inbred Mm domesticus
08-13-2011, 02:02 AM
Sam Stone, you provide plenty of additional facts. Thank-you. Then you supply interpretation, which are all biased toward conservative talking points. Thanks for nothing. Here are all those clever talking points:

Wow, this attempt to turn a plan the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote in the Senate into "a Republican Plan" tells me one thing - you guys are running from it as fast as you can because you know it's a godawful mess.

Nobody is making this attempt in the way you are interpreting it. Nobody is running from it, but it is criticized since it did not live up to what it could have been.

That gets you almost half of the way there. The other half of the costs are supposed to be clawed out of the Medicare system in the form of cuts to doctor reimbursements and finding savings by cutting 'waste, fraud, and abuse'. And we all know those kinds of promised cuts always happen.

But we'll get there somehow. Perhaps we can cancel the Joint Strike Fighter or some other massive waste of money. It's a necessary reform and the benefits of it will make it obvious that it is worth paying for. It's good that there are people willing to make this argument to keep the idealists honest.

It's probably a major factor holding back job creation right now. Businesses are terrified of this, because it is just riddled with unknowns and is going to have a major distortionary effect on the economy.

Holding back "job creation". You'd think businesses would be holding back "job creation" based on not needing employees to provide goods or services. So which businesses will not hire employees to supply goods and services, despite needing them, just because of unknowns about health insurance? Wouldn't the market destroy such a company for failing to satisfy its customers? Wouldn't a smaller company grow larger taking these customers?

Notice that there is $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies, plus they are being forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions, plus the cost of medical devices is going up by $20 billion and non-generic drugs by $27 billion, plus insurers will be forced to pay for the children of insurees up to the age of 26. These are all new cost drivers for insurance. How much are businesses that currently offer health insurance going to see their rates increase by? No one knows.

Not sure if I disagree with this statement but then I don't care about these companies' profit margins anyway.

We do know that price controls are a giant fail. If the government caps the amount insurers are allowed to charge, but dumps new fees and mandates on them, it could drive the health insurance business underwater. Shortages are always the inevitable result of price controls. Some cynics have suggested that this is a back-door way to get to a single payer system - make everything except the government exchanges unaffordable. But even if that doesn't happen, there could be shortages. Some companies may not be able to find insurance for their employees, which could open them up to fines.

Or their profits will just shrink. Don't buy health insurance stock.

This program is going to heavily distort the economy in strange ways. For example, if you're a company with 49 employees, the marginal cost of that 50'th employee is through the roof because hiring that person will require that you then provide health insurance for everyone, or you'll pay $40,000 per year in penalties (the law allows you to skip the charge for the first 30 employees, so you'll pay $2,000 X 20, per year). That's going to kill jobs in the very sector we rely on to create the most - growing businesses.

As another example: Let's say you make skis. You have a large, labor-intensive manufacturing system, and you employ 1000 people. Your competitor invested a few hundred million in automation for his skis, so his capital costs are higher but he only employs 100 people. The two of you are competitive, and have about the same market share. But along comes Obamacare, and suddenly your company is hit by a fine of $2,000 per employee, so your bottom line costs just went up by $200,000, while your competitor's only went up by $20,000. Now you can't compete as well, and you lose market share.

Or, consider two large companies. One pays its employees on average $4,000 per month, plus health care benefits. The other has made a different deal with employees - it pays them an average of $4500 per month, but they pay for their own health care. But now, this company is also getting fined $2,000 per employee. Can it just roll back salaries to compensate? Probably not. Wages are sticky. People's expenses grow to match their wages. It's always hard to roll them back. So suddenly the second company is at a disadvantage, even though both gave their employees equal compensation before the health care law came along.

Nice examples except that all of them ignore the actual fact that the types of businesses you are describing already supply health insurance (end of article) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html). Who works at a job paying $4500/month that is not supplying health insurance? Between the tax credits provided to businesses and the health insurance exchanges (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/) where they can make plans with other small businesses, this plan is going to be a neutral to a win for a vast majority of these companies. Since most decent businesses are good at math, they already know it.

Then there's the big unknowns. Let's say you offer health care today. Is it good enough? It has to be good enough that none of your employees will seek out the exchanges, or you're going to get hit with massive fines. But the health exchanges haven't been set up yet, and the rules and coverage schedules haven't been written, so no one knows.

Most new insurance plans will be obtained by businesses via the exchanges. What the hell are you talking about? If true as stated, there are easy fixes anyway.

Would you hire people today if you had no way of knowing if they were going to cost you $3,000 per year more in 2014? Would you increase your workforce now if you knew there was a chance that you were going to be put at a competitive disadvantage in the market in 2014, and that disadvantage will be worse with each employee you hire?

I, and an other rational creature, would hire people if their business required it and layoff people if it needed to shed jobs. Why would a business owner consider hiring if their sales or growth or whatever did not need it?

The CBO originally scored this as deficit neutral, but that's no longer true. Actually it wasn't true then either, because the Democrats cooked the books to get the CBO score by front-loading taxes and back-loading benefits. But it's no longer true even under the CBO formulation. The 1099 form requirement has been dropped. The 'gold-plated insurance' plan has been dropped under pressure from the unions. No one believes the $500 billion in savings from Medicare will ever materialize. But even if that savings did, it could just as easily have been taken from there and applied to the deficit. What this plan does is soak up all the 'low-hanging fruit' where budgets could have been cut, making future budget reductions in health care that much harder.

Maybe we could raise revenues or something and enjoy a higher standard of living through better availability of healthcare. I much prefer that than to raising revenues due to irresponsible tax cuts, wars on countries that are no threat to us, and poorly regulated financial services.

Obama has already deferred the cuts to doctor's payments twice. But if he does cut them, the net effect will be the same as what happened to medicaid - doctors will stop treating people who fall under this plan. Even worse (and the reason why various states are now returning the seed money for setting up exchanges), if the cuts completely go through, doctors would get paid more under medicaid. This means that more people may wind up being forced into medicaid to get treatment - and the states have to pay a big chunk of that. So the federal government's books look okay, but the states get clobbered.

Could you just provide some cites? What I love most about politics is how a piece of legislation can be interpreted to have all these dire consequences by activists on the left and right but when you finally get your fingers on the actual facts of the matter, it turns out to be bunk.

The Obama White House has already issued about a thousand temporary waivers to various businesses, because the rules set up for 2011, 2012, and 2013 turned out to be unrealistic.

Ok. It's a flexible plan. This should ease transition well. I know Republicans would design legislation that would only take effect perfectly on time. Seriously, you are just typing any factoid about this plan and saying "Dire!" or attaching this factoid to something Boston Scientific did. Are they related or are you just attaching things together to make them sound bad - like an activist would?

Oh, and if the individual mandate is shot down by the courts, this thing is dead. Without that, a huge part of the funding mechanism for this - the requirement for healthy, young people to pay in - will vanish. If you can't be turned away for pre-existing conditions and the amount insurance providers can charge is capped, the obvious strategy for everyone would be to go uninsured until they get sick or injured, then sign up. That destroys the entire insurance model.

It will not be dead unless the whole thing is shot down by the courts. It would be terrible if the budget conscious Republicans refused to do what was necessary to fund these aspects of the legislation and allowed our deficits to continue to skyrocket! They are budget hawks after all!

BigT
08-13-2011, 02:15 AM
The democrats created the current plan with the hopes that it would persuade the Republicans (or a certain independent that was voting with them). That's where the idea that they messed it up comes from. The original plan included a single player option.

When the Republicans refused to enact the plan, that's when the Democrats took advantage of the situation and voted it in anyways. If they'd have delayed and put back in the original plan, nothing would have been passed. And, anyways, everything in the bill had widespread public support, while the individual option was much more divided.

Finally, after the shit we went through now, it's really hard for anyone to think that Republicans ever actually tried to compromise. It is, unfortunately, much easier to believe that they pretended to be for something they were not. The idea that Republicans would create a plan that they did not 100% like, and actually plan on voting for it, just seems odd.

Maybe that's just viewing older Republicans through a modern lens. But, either way, it's a compelling position to take.

Sam Stone
08-13-2011, 03:15 AM
Nobody is making this attempt in the way you are interpreting it. Nobody is running from it, but it is criticized since it did not live up to what it could have been.

There has been a definite change of rhetoric on the left from, "This is a great plan!" to, "This is a good plan with some unfortunate compromises", to "Hey, Republicans had a plan like this too!", to "This is Republican plan! It's not the one we wanted!"

No one shifts their rhetoric like that unless they realize the plan sucks. No one's proud of this achievement any more. When's the last time you heard Obama tell people how proud he was of the health care bill? This is not a guy who's shy about taking credit for things.

But we'll get there somehow. Perhaps we can cancel the Joint Strike Fighter or some other massive waste of money. It's a necessary reform and the benefits of it will make it obvious that it is worth paying for. It's good that there are people willing to make this argument to keep the idealists honest.

Okay, so long as you admit that this is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. But if you haven't noticed, you're not going to find an easy place to cut to get the additional money, because everything else is getting cut already. The U.S. is broke. There is going to be a 'supercommittee' that has to find 1.2 trillion dollars in cuts, which must be applied to the debt. Just what do you think is going to be left that's easy to cut after they're done? It's going to be a tremendous battle just to get the cuts they have to find to avoid automatic, across the board cuts to everything. There's not going to be any easy money for you to confiscate to pay for this.

Holding back "job creation". You'd think businesses would be holding back "job creation" based on not needing employees to provide goods or services. So which businesses will not hire employees to supply goods and services, despite needing them, just because of unknowns about health insurance? Wouldn't the market destroy such a company for failing to satisfy its customers? Wouldn't a smaller company grow larger taking these customers?

Do you understand business economics? Jobs are created when the marginal productivity of a new worker is greater than zero. Jobs are lost when the marginal productivity drops below zero. If you raise the cost of employment for any reason, workers on the zero marginal productivity line lose their jobs (with some wiggle room for 'sticky wages' and the cost of firing and re-hiring). I can absolutely guarantee you that adding $2000-$3000 to the cost of an employee will absolutely cause some jobs that would otherwise be created to be lost.

As a side issue, the minimum wage was raised in 2007 from $5.85 to $7.25. That change didn't go into effect until 2009, right in the middle of the recession. It's most likely a contributing factor to the much-higher unemployment rates for young workers. Add in the health care mandate cost, and you get a dramatic rise in the cost of minimum wage employees.

Let's assume you want to hire someone for a job 35 hours per week, 50 weeks per year. In 2007, that job would cost a business $10,237. In 2014, that same job will cost $12,587 because of the minimum wage increase. If the employer also has to pay a $2,000 health care fine, we're at $14,587 - a 40% increase in the cost of a worker.

If you think increasing employment costs by 40% won't result in lower job growth, you're crazy. It's probably a big reason why unemployment is much higher among people who would be earning minimum wage - young people and uneducated people.

Not sure if I disagree with this statement but then I don't care about these companies' profit margins anyway.

This is the attitude that just makes me roll my eyes in disbelief. Some of you think businesses are just a bottomless well of money, that no matter what mandates you throw at them or costs you impose on them, they can somehow just 'take it out of profits'. It's an almost childlike view of how the world works.

In reality, many businesses, and especially small businesses, are generally cash-strapped and operating on razor-thin margins. Most new ventures fail. Small businessmen often go years without taking a salary or taking only subsistence salary from their business because they can't compete well enough to build a real profit margin. An awful lot of them have a hell of a time just meeting payroll, and every pay period makes them sweat.

Most businesses are not Apple and Microsoft. In many industries, profit margins may only be 2-3%. And out of that, they have to raise capital for expansion so more jobs can be created.

And there are always businesses 'on the margin'. Those businesses that are just hanging on by the skin of their teeth, with their accounts payable overdue, juggling their finances so they can survive another month. Raise the cost of doing business, and you kill the businesses on the margin. This is a fundamental economic law that is beyond dispute.

You may not care about profits, but you should care about the people who work for those companies.

Or their profits will just shrink. Don't buy health insurance stock.

Uh huh. More magical thinking. Their profits will just shrink but that won't change a thing, will it? Other than taking money from the guys in the Bentleys smoking big cigars, right?

Again, here's the reality: In a competitive market, profits are already at about the lowest level they can be. If they weren't, more competition would enter the field to drive down prices. industries that have higher profits than others often take larger risks, and the higher profits are necessary to pay for that risk. Or, they have higher costs of entry some other factor that demands those levels of profit. They are not a bottomless well of other people's money for your social programs. If you raise their costs, they will respond by raising their rates. If the government caps their rates, they'll respond by cutting services. If the government forbids them to cut services, they'll go out of business. Some might survive, but the ones on the margin will be gone.

Nice examples except that all of them ignore the actual fact that the types of businesses you are describing already supply health insurance (end of article) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html).[/quote

Actually, what is says is:

[quote]Less than half of businesses with three to nine workers offered health insurance in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That figure climbed above 70% for companies with 10 to 24 employees and to nearly 90% for those with 25 to 49 workers.

It also says this:

The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business, says the proposal will burden employers and threaten broader economic recovery and that few businesses will qualify for the tax credit.

The administration acknowledges that health-care costs strain companies but says it's only fair that larger employers—those with at least 50 employees—share the responsibility for ensuring workers have health-care coverage.

So, small businessmen say this is going to hurt them and threaten the recovery, and the administration admits it but says it must be done for reasons of fairness.

But everyone seems to agree that this is going to cost jobs and hurt the recovery.

...this plan is going to be a neutral to a win for a vast majority of these companies. Since most decent businesses are good at math, they already know it.

No, they don't. The NASB says it will hurt business. The administration says that's probably true. Surveys of small businessmen in the Chamber of Commerce finds that 72% of them say that the new health care law is going to hurt their companies and cost jobs.

I, and an other rational creature, would hire people if their business required it and layoff people if it needed to shed jobs. Why would a business owner consider hiring if their sales or growth or whatever did not need it?

Really? So you'd hire a worker for your 7/11 if you had to pay $100,000/yr for him, and you were only making $90,000/yr from the store? If you have an opening for someone to make shirts that sell for $30 and take an hour of labor to make, you'd hire him if you had to pay $35/hr? Remind me not to invest in any businesses you might start.

Maybe we could raise revenues or something and enjoy a higher standard of living through better availability of healthcare.

Maybe the revenue fairy will bring it. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. government is already borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. You've run out of other people's money.

I much prefer that than to raising revenues due to irresponsible tax cuts, wars on countries that are no threat to us, and poorly regulated financial services.

Great. Repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich. Cut the military in half. Guess what? That only pays for less than a third of the deficit. Raise taxes on the rich by another 20%. That might get you another 20% of the deficit. Now you're REALLY out of money, and you have nothing left to cut other than other liberal programs, and you haven't even closed your deficit.

You need to get it through your head that you're broke. Did you hear that the U.S. Treasury got downgraded? It was in all the papers. The debate in Washington now isn't where to spend more money, but where to cut to avoid defaulting on the debt or having the U.S. credit rating downgraded again. And you're facing a massive increase in spending as the baby boom retires. Your debt is 13 trillion dollars. There's no easy money left. There are no financial games you can play that will allow you to fund a massive new entitlement program without hurting real people. That's just reality.

elucidator
08-13-2011, 10:09 AM
....The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business, says the proposal will burden employers and threaten broader economic recovery and that few businesses will qualify for the tax credit....

Oh, look its another totally unbiased, non-partisan cite source from Sam! I can tell its totally non-partisan, because its from Sam, and if they had any political leanings, he would respect your intelligence enough to say so, 'cause that's how he rolls!

So, who are these strictly non-partisan National Federation of Independent Business? Lets nose around their site a bit, shall we, see what we come up with.

"While big labor can just take money from union dues to fund political operations..." Big labor? Oh, dear, this is not a promising beginning, non-partisan wise.

"....NFIB's SAFE Trust PAC supports proven business candidates.... "

Hmmm. "Proven business candidates". So far, then, what we have is people who favor business over the scurrilous labor bosses. As well they might, being non-partisan and unbiased. Yes.

"President Obama continues to stress the importance of creating jobs in the midst of our economic recession. Yet, small business owners, the top job creators, are unwilling to create new positions or add extra costs because of economic uncertainty. Why? Concern about rising healthcare costs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the top contributors."

(emphasis added in snark)

This is nicely done! Note: they don't say it is the "top contributor" to "economic uncertainty". They just slip it to you with a flexible caveat, it "one of the top contributors" Well, is it "one" of the top two? One of the top ten? One of the top ten thousand? They slide past that like Hans Brinker skating on a frozen lake of bullshit.

Wouldn't it be easier, Sam, not to try and pull this crap?

Shodan
08-13-2011, 10:36 AM
I'm Canadian, Yank. I have no memories of not having government health care, but I've noted that Americans on this board and on their various punditfests throw around the term "Obamacare" a lot and I figured it was high time I got a straightforward factual summary of what exactly it entails, and I thank Inbred Mm domesticus for giving me a starting point.
My apologies, then. I thought you were trying what Diogenes did.

The Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) article is a good place to start.

Regards,
Shodan

Martin Hyde
08-13-2011, 10:58 AM
That is why I'm not sure a SCOTUS decision along the lines of the 11th Circuit's thinking would be all that bad for Democrats. It could force Congress to revisit HCR while the provisions that were upheld could give Democrats a great position to bargain from. Break up the bill into it's constituent parts and the bill, the mandate not withstanding, polled reasonably well. These are the parts the GOP would be having to oppose if the mandate is ruled severable and Republicans still insist on full repeal.

Evidence suggests that even though the Democrats control the Senate and the White House their negotiating tactic is to cave in to the GOP, so not sure it would be any different in this scenario.

Inbred Mm domesticus
08-13-2011, 01:07 PM
Oh, look its another totally unbiased, non-partisan cite source from Sam! I can tell its totally non-partisan, because its from Sam, and if they had any political leanings, he would respect your intelligence enough to say so, 'cause that's how he rolls!...

I noticed that his responses to my comments on his original post were unrelated. Where I said I did not care about the profit margins of massive health insurance companies he starts talking about small businesses as though that was what I was talking about.

In quoting from my cite he not only emphasized this organization that just screams partisan (so I ignored it) and then highlighted facts that were unrelated to my response. It went like this:
Sam Stone, post #31: What about businesses with 49 employees and those that pay their employees $45,000/yr+? This uncertainty is dire to job creation.
Inbred Mm domesticus, post#40: Roughly 90% of the companies you just described already provide health insurance, according to this cite (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html). The legislation, with tax credits is likely to be neutral, according to this cite (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/), and the previous cite (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html).
Sam Stone, post#42: Ignoring the tax credits and citing statistics unrelated to my original post, this is quite dire.

Sam Stone, as for the rest of what you said about the costs of this legislation. I am actually an adult. I am not a child who places unrealistic expectations on needed changes to our government so that it can be deficit neutral. I understand that nothing is free. This legislation is an improvement over the health care system we have but it could have been much better. It is needed so that all citizens of our country improve their access to health insurance. Obama should be proud of it as well as all those who voted in favor of it.

Conservative viewpoints are beneficial to the legislation because it of the unintended consequences that you are so in love with. Keeping things honest will take this massive improvement to the lives of all Americans that much better as time goes on.

ElvisL1ves
08-13-2011, 07:48 PM
Bryan, since you keep asking: "Obamacare" is a rhetorical term invented by the more staunchly party-before-country wing of the Republican Party for the Affordable Care Act. The choice of term was made under the delusion that it is actually unpopular with the people, and that hanging it around Obama's neck will prove to be electorally advantageous. It's a boomerang, though - ACA actually being strongly supported, with a strong majority thinking it's either about right or doesn't go far enough, the name instead constitutes free advertising for their enemy.

If what you mean is that you're uninformed as to the operational details of ACA, there are many places you can go to find out for yourself - you're way behind.

Bryan Ekers
08-13-2011, 07:52 PM
If what you mean is that you're uninformed as to the operational details of ACA, there are many places you can go to find out for yourself - you're way behind.

Well, my country has universal health care and yours does not, so it's not really me who's far behind, is it?


In any case I've read some of the cites... I'm not yet sure what the big deal is, though I recognize the Republican incentive to make it a big deal.

ElvisL1ves
08-13-2011, 08:34 PM
Was he the Republican who saved us from HillaryCare?You mean the program that would have had health care decisions made by distant government functionaries, rationing it based on available funds, instead of the system we got instead, where health care decisions are made by distant corporate functionaries, reducing it as much as possible based on profit maximization? Yes, that one - we very narrowly escaped that socialist hell, thanks to Bob Dole and his band of merry men.

Bryan, I do think you're better than that. :rolleyes:

Chronos
08-14-2011, 01:32 PM
Quoth Sam Stone:There has been a definite change of rhetoric on the left from, "This is a great plan!" to, "This is a good plan with some unfortunate compromises", to "Hey, Republicans had a plan like this too!", to "This is Republican plan! It's not the one we wanted!"How is this so difficult? Our opinions on the plan changed because the plan changed. The great plan, the one we wanted, was the one with the public option. The good plan with unfortunate consequences, which wasn't the one we wanted but which we were willing to settle for, was the one the Republicans of over a decade ago came up with. We're not trying to run from it; it was the best we were able to get. But the current Republicans are running from it, at top speed.

Sam Stone
08-14-2011, 02:38 PM
Quoth Sam Stone:How is this so difficult? Our opinions on the plan changed because the plan changed. The great plan, the one we wanted, was the one with the public option. The good plan with unfortunate consequences, which wasn't the one we wanted but which we were willing to settle for, was the one the Republicans of over a decade ago came up with. We're not trying to run from it; it was the best we were able to get. But the current Republicans are running from it, at top speed.

I'm talking about how attitudes changed after this bill was passed.

gonzomax
08-14-2011, 02:54 PM
The conservatives jump all over it when a court throws it back. They seem to stay home when it is affirmed in court. It is not over.

ElvisL1ves
08-14-2011, 02:55 PM
Sam, has it not occurred to you that the rhetoric you hear from the responsible-adult segment of US society (OK, call it the monolithic "left" you imagine exists, if you prefer) might be in response to the change in rhetoric from your guys? The "socialist", "tyranny", "loss of freedom" shit you no doubt are aware of (and, if you aren't, then you need some de-ignorancing badly)? That it might be by way of pointing out the lying and ignorance and rabble-rousing that has resulted from the rise in power of the more irresponsible wing of the party you cheerlead for?

Really now.

gonzomax
08-14-2011, 03:42 PM
Our health care system is folded into the cost of doing business. That is just too stupid for defense. The implications are simple to understand. What we have sucks and hurts us competitively.
Obama wanted to fix it, but the Republicans would have been on the outside looking in if they allowed him to do it. So they are blowing the whole thing up for political gain.
The Affordable Care Act is a big improvement. But it still has health insurance companies sucking up a huge chunk of the money while denying as much health care as they can get away with.
The Act forces the health insurance companies to put 85 percent of what they collect into health care. They are fighting that with everything they have.

Eonwe
08-14-2011, 08:25 PM
As (basically) a democrat, I'm glad this got struck down. Requiring citizens to do business with another entity seems all kinds of wrong.

Tax me if you want, but don't force me to buy widgets from company A, B, or C.

Whack-a-Mole
09-08-2011, 05:54 PM
Update:

Appeals court throws out health reform challenge

in one of the biggest victories for president obama's health care reform overhaul, a federal appeals court dismissed two high-profile cases questioning the law's constitutionality.

The one-two punch from the 4th circuit court of appeals in richmond found that virginia attorney general ken cuccinelli and liberty university have no legal right to sue over the reform law's demand that all americans buy health insurance or pay a fine.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/appeals-court-throws-out-health-reform-challenge.html

Omg a Black Conservative
09-08-2011, 05:58 PM
But that says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. In fact, the challenge was dismissed on a technical ground, which is akin to a "punt".

Whack-a-Mole
09-08-2011, 06:00 PM
But that says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. In fact, the challenge was dismissed on a technical ground, which is akin to a "punt".

If they do not have the legal right to sue who does?

gonzomax
09-08-2011, 06:01 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/federal-court-obama-health-care-reform-law_n_953896.html
And so it goes. All this right wing certainty is uncertain again. But the Supreme Court works for the rightys ,so it is not hard to see another 5 to 4, in favor of the powerful.

Jas09
09-08-2011, 06:01 PM
But that says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. In fact, the challenge was dismissed on a technical ground, which is akin to a "punt".From the article:
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Andre Davis said he wished the 4th Circuit would have considered the merits of the law itself rather than simply dismissing the cases on technical grounds. Two of the judges -- Davis and James Wynn -- noted that they would have ruled that the government is within its rights to implement the mandate.It would have been overturned on the merits as well, at least 2-to-1.

John Mace
09-08-2011, 06:10 PM
If they do not have the legal right to sue who does?

Every adult in the US.

Omg a Black Conservative
09-08-2011, 06:17 PM
If they do not have the legal right to sue who does?

"The individual citizens who will be affected". Apparently, "the individual citizens who will be affected" do not vote in the state's government.

It would have been overturned on the merits as well, at least 2-to-1.

Not quite. They ruled that the insurance-mandate penalties are a "tax", and as a result they can't be appealed until after they're collected. Again, a "punt". Adding in "Oh, well I would have ruled <x> way" after the fact is a cop-out.

John Mace
09-08-2011, 06:20 PM
This thing is going to land on the doorstep of the SCOTUS. The sooner the better so we can settle this once and for all.

Jas09
09-08-2011, 06:27 PM
Not quite. They ruled that the insurance-mandate penalties are a "tax", and as a result they can't be appealed until after they're collected. Again, a "punt". Adding in "Oh, well I would have ruled <x> way" after the fact is a cop-out.Yes, I know how they ruled.

However, if all 3 of us say "you lose because you have no standing" and 2 of us also say "however, if you had standing, you still lose"... surely this means that you lose, right?

Bricker
09-08-2011, 08:57 PM
Yes, I know how they ruled.

However, if all 3 of us say "you lose because you have no standing" and 2 of us also say "however, if you had standing, you still lose"... surely this means that you lose, right?

But that's not what they said.

"You lose because you have no standing, ever," and "You would still have lost because no one will get standing until they pay the tax," are the two operative phrases.

No one said, "You would still lose if you had paid the tax."

And for the record: I believe the law is constitutional, and the correct decision is, in fact, "You would still lose if you had paid the tax."

ElvisL1ves
09-09-2011, 08:51 PM
No one said, "You would still lose if you had paid the tax."Really? (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/09/09/appeals_panel_tosses_out_cases_dealing_with_health_care_overhaul/) In the process, however, two of the three judges on the panel volunteered that they would have upheld the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, if they had been able to rule on the substance of the cases.IOW, yes, your guy Cooch and his fellow government-haters lose comprehensively.

It's really quite, um, remarkable to see the Nullification Doctrine brought back out of the history books where it's been hiding since before the Civil War. That's what your Federalist Society ideology has brought us to now - actually having to adjudicate that silliness once again. The plaintiffs, and their supporters such as yourself, might as well done this while donning frock coats and dipping snuff, with the colored servants bringing in fresh glasses of port, while you condemn the perfidy of the Whigs.