# Healthcare Reform Down In Flames? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004 "2010-12-13T17:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/181 "2010-12-15T14:39:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I was replying to the implication that you don’t consider this to be causing considerable damage to the national interest. The tie-in was that Republicans are seeking Obama’s failure, and by that action have done damage to the national interest. Your information shows jobs lost with our current system, which (obviously) precedes Obama and cannot possibly be the result of an animus against Obama. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/182 "2010-12-15T14:40:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again: the judge assumed that all the factual claims made by the federal government were true. > > What information, specifically, did you contend Cuccinelli gave the judge? As it was most likely a mistake (But with guys like Cuccinelli I doubt that), I have to assume he and the prosecutor grabbed a misconception and ran with it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/183 "2010-12-15T14:43:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The tie-in was that Republicans are seeking Obama’s failure, and by that action have done damage to the national interest. Your information shows jobs lost with our current system, which (obviously) precedes Obama and cannot possibly be the result of an animus against Obama. That was not what the conclusion said, and not all the items (including the one in the OP) of the new plan are in place yet. This is a very misleading point from you BTW, Republicans did blame Obama and the democrats for the mess we are in and Health care reform needed to be removed. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/184 "2010-12-15T15:08:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not how argument works. cite? I think you’re just trying to engage in debate society tricks, and I don’t feel like playing. It’s too bad the right has behaved so abysmally over the last decade as to make their motives highly questionable in _all_ matters. But there you have it. What’s a fellow supposed to do? Hint: The answer is not playing “cite-O-Rama” with people who desire to keep up the myth of the noble conservative. Come back when you get a ruling from [a judge who doesn’t receive payments fom a Republican campaign consulting firm](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/12/health_care_judge_says_he_has.html). Now days that sort of shit just strains my liberal credulity past the breaking point. Would it have killed the judge to recuse himself? The ruling is a partisan attack by the Republicans, until proven otherwise. Go ahead, ask me for a cite. It’ll make it look like you won the debate. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/185 "2010-12-15T15:13:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is this like your last [legal analysis](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12322310&postcount=266), where you asserted the ACORN law was a bill of attainder because you read it somewhere? How did that one work out for you? > > The problem in the judge’s decision is not a “logical flaw.” It’s that the decision rolls back precedent to the 1940s. The decision is perfectly logical. It just uses a view of the Commerce Clause that the Supreme Court rejected sixty years ago. I wish they hadn’t, and I’d love them to take this chance to rethink their idea. I made a mistake here, indeed I was referring to the post by **gonzomax**. And reading what you posted here, I have to say that it is still a very long shot to overcome the precedents starting from 60 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/186 "2010-12-15T15:23:54Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Most people are not seriously sick. Most people have no preexisting conditions. Most people do not suffer catastrophic accidents. Most people happily pay their insurance premiums and cost the insurance company almost nothing year after year. This is completely meaningless to the healthcare debate and in no way shape or form addresses the need of reform. There is also the issue that being satisfied with your healthcare is not the same as opposing reform. I have great healthcare which I use for I my wife who has severe chronic illness. So if I was polled as to whether I was satisfied with my health care I would give a resounding yes. That said I realize how screwed we would be if we lost it. I realize that I have less flexibility to change jobs or work for myself because outside of employee health plans she would never be able to get coverage. Also, although she and I are very very happily married, if she wasn’t happy with me she couldn’t divorce me for fear of losing coverage. Finally, I pity those who are in her position but don’t have someone to support them with healthcare coverage. So yes I am satisfied with my healthcare, but health coverage (ideally single payer) is my number one priority as a voter. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/187 "2010-12-15T15:31:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? How does that translate to “trapped” at a job? I’m “trapped” in the same way if the new company doesn’t provide a company car. I need a car, so I’ll have to buy one, an expense of thousands of dollars – much more than COBRA for one month. But you’d never have the bare-faced gall to claim that you’re trapped in a job because other jobs don’t offer you a company car. There is a big difference between a company car, and the ability to see a pain doctor and get pain meds that keep your life from being a living hell of agony. Slaves also weren’t trapped by their masters, they just would have to leave behind the luxuries of not getting whipped or lynched if they left. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/188 "2010-12-15T15:38:50Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > There is a big difference between a company car, and the ability to see a pain doctor and get pain meds that keep your life from being a living hell of agony. Slaves also weren’t trapped by their masters, they just would have to leave behind the luxuries of not getting whipped or lynched if they left. Yeah, the opposition to reform always likes to mention how beautiful in theory things like COBRA are, they do not care that in practice many can not use it or the new job puts barriers to continue coverage (many of those barriers should be illegal now, but in practice many companies continue with those barriers or become more creative) ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/189 "2010-12-15T15:44:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yeah, the opposition to reform always likes to mention how beautiful in theory things like COBRA are, they do not care that in practice many can not use it or the new job puts barriers to continue coverage (many of those barriers should be illegal now, but in practice many companies continue with those barriers or become more creative) Care to cite some examples… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/190 "2010-12-15T15:49:09Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Care to cite some examples… Already posted with my own example. But here are more examples and reasons why COBRA is not what many claim to be: > **[Ten Circumstances When COBRA is NOT Available to You - Sklover Working Wisdom](https://skloverworkingwisdom.com/ten-circumstances-when-cobra-is-not-available-to-you/)** > > “He who has health, has hope, and he who has hope, has everything.” – Arabian Proverb ACTUAL CASE HISTORY: Justin had been laid off from his job in Pittsburgh as a Project Manager for a large construction company. He was not at all surprised by his... [http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-02-20/life/24662949\_1\_cobra-subsidy-cobra-payments-offering-health-insurance](http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-02-20/life/24662949_1_cobra-subsidy-cobra-payments-offering-health-insurance) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/191 "2010-12-15T15:52:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I made a mistake here, indeed I was referring to the post by **gonzomax**. > > And reading what you posted here, I have to say that it is still a very long shot to overcome the precedents starting from 60 years ago. No I did not read it somewhere. I read it in several places written by lawyers and legal experts. I did not pick up some poster and relay his info as fact. That was very lawyerly of you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/192 "2010-12-15T15:56:20Z")
I think you are referring to \*\*Bricker, \*\*uh **gonzo**? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/193 "2010-12-15T16:08:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already posted with my own example. > > But here are more examples and reasons why COBRA is not what many claim to be: > > [http://skloverworkingwisdom.com/blog/index.php/ten-circumstances-when-cobra-is-not-available-to-you/](http://skloverworkingwisdom.com/blog/index.php/ten-circumstances-when-cobra-is-not-available-to-you/) > > [http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-02-20/life/24662949\_1\_cobra-subsidy-cobra-payments-offering-health-insurance](http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-02-20/life/24662949_1_cobra-subsidy-cobra-payments-offering-health-insurance) Neither of those outlined any “barriers” the new employer was placing to prevent transfer of coverage. As for the case where the employee discovered that his new POTENTIAL employer’s plan would only cover half, I didn’t see any mention of the potential employer holding a gun to his head and making him accept the offer. As it was, they were able to find a workaround which worked for them. Otherwise, he could have continued to search for work elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/194 "2010-12-15T16:12:03Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Neither of those outlined any “barriers” the new employer was placing to prevent transfer of coverage. I see you missed the one where the employer stopped giving coverage to all his workers. They remain barriers to the beautiful theory. > [@flickster](#): > > As for the case where the employee discovered that his new POTENTIAL employer’s plan would only cover half, I didn’t see any mention of the potential employer holding a gun to his head and making him accept the offer. As it was, they were able to find a workaround which worked for them. Otherwise, he could have continued to search for work elsewhere. There was a second page with more examples, but then again ignorance needs to march on. Also: what other jobs? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/195 "2010-12-15T16:22:19Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > cite? > I think you’re just trying to engage in debate society tricks, and I don’t feel like playing. That’s too bad. Because if you cannot provide evidence in support of an assertion, then it may be denied without discussion. That’s not a “debate society trick,” but simple logic: the person proferring an idea cannot argue that his idea must be true because his opponents have failed to disprove it. > [@](#): > > It’s too bad the right has behaved so abysmally over the last decade as to make their motives highly questionable in _all_ matters. But there you have it. What’s a fellow supposed to do? Point out ad hominem fallacies when they occur and hope for the best. > [@](#): > > Hint: The answer is not playing “cite-O-Rama” with people who desire to keep up the myth of the noble conservative. > Come back when you get a ruling from [a judge who doesn’t receive payments fom a Republican campaign consulting firm](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/12/health_care_judge_says_he_has.html). Now days that sort of shit just strains my liberal credulity past the breaking point. Would it have killed the judge to recuse himself? I have my own opinions of your credulity, and they begin where you characterize owning a small number of shares in a consulting company translates to “receiving payments.” In fact, you have no idea if the judge has received any payments at all, and certainly no payments that are not more accurately characterized as “dividends” – the same dividends paid to any stockholder. > [@](#): > > The ruling is a partisan attack by the Republicans, until proven otherwise. > Go ahead, ask me for a cite. It’ll make it look like you won the debate. 😉 No, it’s for you to prove your assertion. Asking for a cite is intended to identify an assertion I challenge. Since you’re quite comfortable with simply asserting it without proof, my only response can be: no, it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/196 "2010-12-15T16:34:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I made a mistake here, indeed I was referring to the post by **gonzomax**. > > And reading what you posted here, I have to say that it is still a very long shot to overcome the precedents starting from 60 years ago. I’m not so sure how long a shot it is. First, I think the Fourth Circuit will be receptive to the idea. So I’m willing to bet it will be upheld at the Circuit level. The Supreme Court has scaled back the sixty-year precedent in two relatively recent cases: the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); holding that federal law that gave victims of gender-based violence a civil cause of action exceed Congress’ Commerce Clause powers) and the Gun Free School Zones Act (United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); holding that prohibiting guns within 1000 feet of a school exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause powers). What’s at issue now is whether refusal to buy something can be penalized. This decision doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional for the government to offer healthcare… it says the federal government cannot require a person to buy healthcare. Under the sixty year old Wickard v. Filburn decision, it can. But if Wickard didn’t exist, a fair reading of Morrison and Lopez would make it questionable at best. So I’m not so sure now that the Supreme Court won’t be interested in continuing the trend of Lopez and Morrison. In any event, you can see (hopefully) that it’s not a cut-and-dry issue. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/197 "2010-12-15T16:40:26Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > The poster’s premise was that his friend was locked into their current job and unable to leave. Which I guess would be true if they were wishing to leave a position where they had benefits for one where that wouldn’t be available (which would seem foolish to me for someone with serious health issues, but I’ll play along). Wait, isn’t that being locked into your job because of healthcare? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/198 "2010-12-15T16:43:43Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > What do you think would happen if U.S Department of Education stopped appropriations to States for the upcoming fiscal year? How many States could continue to provide public education without federal assistance? Not could, would. There are lots of places in the US that would gladly pitch public education so they could teach creationism, the real history of the War of Northern Aggression, have Bible study, and provide marksmanship classes with targets of abortion providers. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/199 "2010-12-15T16:55:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not so sure how long a shot it is. > > First, I think the Fourth Circuit will be receptive to the idea. So I’m willing to bet it will be upheld at the Circuit level. > > The Supreme Court has scaled back the sixty-year precedent in two relatively recent cases: the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); holding that federal law that gave victims of gender-based violence a civil cause of action exceed Congress’ Commerce Clause powers) and the Gun Free School Zones Act (United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); holding that prohibiting guns within 1000 feet of a school exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause powers). > > What’s at issue now is whether refusal to buy something can be penalized. This decision doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional for the government to offer healthcare… it says the federal government cannot require a person to buy healthcare. > > Under the sixty year old Wickard v. Filburn decision, it can. But if Wickard didn’t exist, a fair reading of Morrison and Lopez would make it questionable at best. > > So I’m not so sure now that the Supreme Court won’t be interested in continuing the trend of Lopez and Morrison. > > In any event, you can see (hopefully) that it’s not a cut-and-dry issue. On that specific point I agree, not cut and dry, but seeing how other recent rulings came, is still a long shot; and I have to agree with others that what the odd judge ruled will most likely be thrown out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/200 "2010-12-15T16:56:58Z")
> [@theR](#): > > There is no severability in the bill. It’s all or nothing. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill will be struck down. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Cite? This White House statement: > [@](#): > > If the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility requirement ultimately prevails, it would mean that provisions preventing health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions would also be invalidated by the court because the two are inseparably linked. If insurance companies are required to cover those with pre-existing conditions, who are potentially more expensive to cover, without requiring everyone—both sick and healthy people—to have insurance, premiums will increase rapidly. Similarly, other provisions – including banning insurers from discriminating based on health status, age and gender – would also fall. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=11)