# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/61 "2010-12-14T01:04:20Z")
It’s a weakly-reasoned opinion that, even if affirmed, will be affirmed on other grounds. Even non-lawyers should be able to see that the whole thing rests on an unsupported footnote (note 7), invalid legal reasoning (relying on the lack of cases saying something rather than cases negating the proposition or reasoning for why the proposition is false), and [misstatement](http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/) of precedent (see p. 24 regarding what the necessary and proper clause requires). But it doesn’t really matter what any of the district courts say about the law, except for public relations purposes. Having at least one court say this challenge is legitimate is important for the cause of repeal. ---
**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 14, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/62 "2010-12-14T01:07:06Z")
Dang, I just made “forsure” into one word. 😛 I have to add that if I was like Machiavelli I would be glad to see this current plan fail just to see the inevitable happen in 15 or 20 years, we will soon find that indeed the US health care prices are a sick bubble that when it bursts with no alternative plan in place, it will make the hard election loss of the Democrats in 2010 to be a firecracker compared to a bomb the Republicans will suffer on the elections following the bubble burst. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/63 "2010-12-14T01:29:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think we should follow the pattern of our cousin language, German, and just make “liberalmedia” one word. But, should we do that, we need to allow a prefix or suffix that demonstrates whether it is meant sarcastically or not. Don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/64 "2010-12-14T01:51:20Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > If it’s ruled unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance, would only that part die, or would the whole thing die? > > In other words, would parts of the reform, like eliminating preexisting conditions, still be in effect? There’s been quite a bit of discussion of this issue on various legal blogs. Basically, many complex pieces of legislation contain a “severability clause” which states that if one piece is found unconstitutional, the rest still applies. The HRC legislation does NOT contain such a clause. Apparently, one was proposed, but was not approved. So, yes, if the individual mandate is struck down, pretty much the whole thing goes down. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/65 "2010-12-14T02:00:47Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > There’s been quite a bit of discussion of this issue on various legal blogs. Basically, many complex pieces of legislation contain a “severability clause” which states that if one piece is found unconstitutional, the rest still applies. The HRC legislation does NOT contain such a clause. Apparently, one was proposed, but was not approved. > > So, yes, if the individual mandate is struck down, pretty much the whole thing goes down. Severance does not turn on the presence or absence of such a clause, except insofar as the presence or absence is indicative of Congressional intent. Congress probably intended for parts of the Act to rely on the individual mandate, but not all of it. Consequently, not all of the Act will be stricken if the mandate is found unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/66 "2010-12-14T02:25:55Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > Here’s some poll numbers from that time period: > > University of Texas/Zogby - 6/18-22, 2009 = 84% of people are satisfied with their health care > > The Washington Post, 6/18-22, 2009 = 81% satisfied with insurance coverage, 88% satisfied with quality of care > > NYT, 6/12-16, 2009 = 77% are satisfied with quality of care > > Democracy Corps, “The Health Care Reform Debate”, 6/15, 2009 = 76% of self-identified independents, 72% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans are satisfied with their coverage > > Gallup, 12/4/08 = 83% of Americans say the quality of healthcare they receive is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ > > CNN/Opinion Research Poll, March 2009 = 73% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance coverage Do you have a link for those numbers, and the context of the polls cited, or am I just supposed to take your word for it, because as “Saint” Ronnie said, trust, but verify. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/67 "2010-12-14T02:38:05Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Neither of those are mandated programs. SS is certainly optional for the self-employed. You ever hear of self employment tax? Its basically both employer and employee sides of social security and medicare. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/68 "2010-12-14T02:39:15Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > You are correct, although I’m not sure how closely it’s enforced. > > Of course, this has little bearing on those working for cash under the table well, if you are working under the table then presumably you aren’t paying any sort of taxes at all. The point isn’t that there are ways to break the law and skirt the tax, the point is that the tax applies to everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/69 "2010-12-14T02:44:43Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > To be more precise, that is **one** of the few ways to get universal coverage without exploding costs. The others include (a) decreases in overhead costs and middle-man profits, (b) more efficient uses of resources (i.e. treating diseases in the most cost-effective ways), (c) reducing overall consumption of health care (either by reducing demand by making it more price-sensitive or by refusing coverage for certain treatments). > > As you mention, absolutely none of these are popular in either the established insurance community or with the general public. The current Act attempts a very little bit of all three, as well as your initial recommendation (in theory the large exchange-based plans can negotiate better prices from doctors than smaller plans can). Ultimately, yes, any workable plan will end with doctors (and specialists in particular) making less money. I don’t see any way around this. > > As to the OP, this is a ruling by a district court judge that goes against rulings in similar cases at higher levels. If the circuit court upholds it, then it will likely end up at SCOTUS (which it might anyways). It is altogether unsurprising that there is one district court judge in the country that would rule this way. Being from Virginia, I wouldn’t be surprised if our attorney general carefully picked his forum. ---
**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 14, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/70 "2010-12-14T02:45:46Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Do you have a link for those numbers, and the context of the polls cited, or am I just supposed to take your word for it, because as “Saint” Ronnie said, trust, but verify. It is not strange, you will also be satisfied if the high cost of health care would be hidden from you when you have a good full time job. IMHO most of that satisfaction would be gone if we all realized that that high cost means that companies or businesses would be reluctant to hire the number of people necessary to complete a task properly, leading to less output. > **[Issues](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/)** [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00985.x/abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00985.x/abstract) > [@](#): > > Results. Faster growth in health care costs had greater adverse effects on economic outcomes for industries with larger percentages of workers who had ESI. We found that a 10 percent increase in excess growth in health care costs would have resulted in 120,803 fewer jobs, US$28,022 million in lost gross output, and US$14,082 million in lost value added in 2005. These declines represent 0.17 to 0.18 percent of employment, gross output, and value added in 2005. > > Conclusion. Excess growth in health care costs is adversely affecting the economic performance of U.S. industries. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/71 "2010-12-14T02:46:13Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > I know the left likes to tell themselves this, but I think that’s bullshit. Since 84% of the public was happy with their healthcare before Obamacare was passed, then Obama was trying to fix a non-problem (or as a conservative would say, he’ was using a trumped up issue to advance a socialist agenda). > > Either way, it was a problem that didn’t need solving. How the hell is that possible? 15% of the public didn’t even have insurance. Are you saying that everyone with insurance was happy with their health care before Obamacare was passed? Do you have a cite? ---
**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 14, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/72 "2010-12-14T02:48:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Being from Virginia, I wouldn’t be surprised if our attorney general carefully picked his forum. On the SDMB forums he is known for his other troglodyte anti-science and censorship exploits. > **[Cuccinelli vs Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561999)** > > Honestly, the guy so blantantly pits himself that there’s little left to say. Cucinelli, the rabidly right-wing new Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has now attacked a scientist in an attempt to smear Global Warming research. From... ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/73 "2010-12-14T02:52:03Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Really??? Seems odd then that those who are able always chose to come for treatment in the US when they have a serious health issue. > > As for the “do not cover everyone” - show me where in the US that patients are denied treatment. Yeah, sure, the fucking Shah of Iran can come here and get incredible medical care but the average level of health care received in the USA is worse. Not because the level of health care is lower than in other countries but because the access is so much worse. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/74 "2010-12-14T02:52:44Z")
> [@Sycorax](#): > > If you’re 65 or older, you have to sign up for Medicare. Medicare and Soc. Sec. are funded partially by deductions from our paychecks. I’m forced (by local government) to pay property insurance (plus more $ to cover flooding and other potential destructive forces as determined by the insurance company) and auto accident insurance. You do not have to sign up for Medicare. You can not until you are 65 ,but if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. My brother never signed up for it and he died at 68. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/75 "2010-12-14T03:00:11Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Read my post again. Happy with _ **their** _ healthcare. > > Most people who lose arguments in the court of public opinion like to blame the media, the opposition was working the refs, etc. Whatever. > > I’ve never seen anyone stump for anything as much as Obama went after this. The country talked about nearly nothing else for a few months (which is unfortunate, since he should have been focusing on the economy, which is why he got the asswhuppin 5 weeks ago). > > Maybe the people just dont want government so heavy-handed in something like this. Heresy to a liberal, sure. But America’s not a liberal country - if anything, they are center-right. I think the country would have been fine with single payer universal health care if Obama got the economy buzzing along. I think a lot of people were wondinering why Obama was fucking around with health care when unemployment was at 10% ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/76 "2010-12-14T03:01:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This makes good news and talk-show fodder. I’m sure there are lots of Pubbies that will be going on about how this validates their earlier statements about the constitutionality of the HCRB. But I’ll be very surprised if this ruling holds up on appeal, especially to the SCOTUS. Haven’t there been several ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/77 "2010-12-14T03:05:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not strange, you will also be satisfied if the high cost of health care would be hidden from you when you have a good full time job. > > IMHO most of that satisfaction would be gone if we all realized that that high cost means that companies or businesses would be reluctant to hire the number of people necessary to complete a task properly, leading to less output. > > [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html) > > [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00985.x/abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00985.x/abstract) This is all very interesting GIGO and makes sense, but it does not answer the question I asked in post 66. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/78 "2010-12-14T03:06:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Haven’t there been several ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law? About a dozen have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and two have found that the law is constitutional on the merits. ---
**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 14, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/79 "2010-12-14T03:08:29Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > This is all very interesting GIGO and makes sense, but it does not answer the question I asked. Well, the things is I did see very similar numbers coming from the ones opposing reform in previous discussions, so I’m only doing some preemptive points. But yeah, I agree; bring on the cites, because as I also remember, in the previous discussions some of those cites were laughable. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/80 "2010-12-14T05:06:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Severance does not turn on the presence or absence of such a clause, except insofar as the presence or absence is indicative of Congressional intent. Congress probably intended for parts of the Act to rely on the individual mandate, but not all of it. Consequently, not all of the Act will be stricken if the mandate is found unconstitutional. To this point, even this judge, who found the mandate unconstitutional, declined to overturn the rest of the law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=5)