Healthcare Reform Down In Flames?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Virginia’s a populous state. Doesn’t it have three federal districts?

No.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You really think the 4th will uphold it?

Yes, I do. Obviously, a given panel makeup could douse it, but the odds are pretty good.

But since you disagree, why not make it interesting?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Okay, so you’ve got two. Is the Eastern District “Real America” or godless heathens?

ETA: Largely because I’m a broke graduate student, and I can’t afford to lose $500. Plus, my opinion was based largely on your own posts, when you didn’t think the HCR lawsuits would work. Presumably you know your own appeals courts better than I do.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Okay, so you’ve got two. Is the Eastern District “Real America” or godless heathens?

The Eastern District includes the heavily Democratic Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Tidewater areas; the Western is more rural and conservative.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

ETA: Largely because I’m a broke graduate student, and I can’t afford to lose $500. Plus, my opinion was based largely on your own posts, when you didn’t think the HCR lawsuits would work. Presumably you know your own appeals courts better than I do.

I think Hudson is wrong.

Or more to the point, I think Hudson would have been right before Wickard, but that ship has long since sailed.

However, there appears to be more enthusiasm than I thought there could ever be for reexamining the Congressional reach under the Commerce Clause, and I think that the Fourth Circuit is probably the most friendly venue in the country for such an argument to fly.

But I freely admit I was wrong about the viability of these claims; I gave them short shrift when I shouldn’t have.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Because one was upheld? The other two were dismissed without trial, IIRC.

[enipla]

I’m curious.

For those that are against UHC, funded partly, (a very small amount) by tax dollars, how do you feel about universal public education (through high-school) that is funded completely by tax dollars.

If you are against UHC, then you must be against this as well.

[jayjay]

@enipla

I’m curious.

For those that are against UHC, funded partly, (a very small amount) by tax dollars, how do you feel about universal public education (through high-school) that is funded completely by tax dollars.

If you are against UHC, then you must be against this as well.

Republicans have been trying to kill public education for years. What do you really think school voucher attempts are about?

[Algher]

@enipla

I’m curious.

For those that are against UHC, funded partly, (a very small amount) by tax dollars, how do you feel about universal public education (through high-school) that is funded completely by tax dollars.

If you are against UHC, then you must be against this as well.

Poor analogy.

Public Education is funded at the State level, not the Federal level. I can change states.

Public Education funding levels differ from District to District.

Public Education has locally elected school boards that can change.

I can vote for local bonds and taxes that directly benefit my school.

I can choose from charter schools, magnet schools, alternative schools, speciality schools all within my district.

I can choose to send my kids to private school.

To compare to UHC at the Federal level you get caught up in too many areas. Finally, WHAT UHC model do you take (Germany, France, various provinces of Canada, the UK)?

[enipla]

@Algher

I can choose from charter schools, magnet schools, alternative schools, speciality schools all within my district.

I can’t. I don’t have any kids in school. Yet I still gladly pay taxes to educate everone elses kids.

I believe that those that can afford health insurance, should either buy it or put the money into the pot as a tax for when (not if) they will need it.

@jayjay

Republicans have been trying to kill public education for years. What do you really think school voucher attempts are about?

Don’t know much about it to be honest. I’ll look into it.

Though, as I said above, I’m OK with being taxed to help other folks kids. Everyones future is at sake.

I am not so happy with supporting people that CAN afford health insurance, but choose not to pay into the pot. So tax em. A single payer system (if we can get it to work, I admit that’s an if) could save lots of money IMHO.

[theR]

@Bricker

He can’t cite his first claim, except by linking to the bill, which I presume you can do just as easily as he can.

His second and third sentences together state one single claim, which is presumably what you’re asking for a citation in support of … but it seems clear to me that he’s asserting that BECAUSE there is no severability clause in the bill, it’s all or nothing. In other words, that’s his case.

It’s for you to show that the lack of a severability clause does not mean the provision is not severable. (Since this is true, you should have no problem doing so.) But you can’t demand a cite for a negative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/us/politics/27health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

My mistake. I misunderstood the severability issue because of a brief reading. Still, doesn’t it seem likely that the SC would not rule that “Congress would have enacted the rest of a law without the unconstitutional provisions.” The law without those provisions would be completely different, so if the mandate is struck then the whole thing will probably go.

[Bricker]

@enipla

I’m curious.

For those that are against UHC, funded partly, (a very small amount) by tax dollars, how do you feel about universal public education (through high-school) that is funded completely by tax dollars.

If you are against UHC, then you must be against this as well.

Algher has given numerous distinctions between the two.

Let me add another one: the public education ship has sailed. Most people now strongly believe that the government must pay for education.

Politics is the art of the possible. I could simply take the position that education is bulletproof but UHC is not.

[Bricker]

@theR

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/us/politics/27health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

My mistake. I misunderstood the severability issue because of a brief reading. Still, doesn’t it seem likely that the SC would not rule that “Congress would have enacted the rest of a law without the unconstitutional provisions.” The law without those provisions would be completely different, so if the mandate is struck then the whole thing will probably go.

Interestingly, the government itself argued:

The core of the Secretary’s primary argument under the Commerce Clause is that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is a necessary measure to ensure the success of its larger reforms of the interstate health insurance market.s The Secretary emphasizes that the ACA is a vital step in transforming a currently dysfunctional interstate health insurance market. In the Secretary’s view, the key elements of health care reform are coverage of those with preexisting conditions and prevention of discriminatory premiums on the basis of medical history. These features, the Secretary maintains, will have a material effect on the health insurance underwriting process, and inevitably, the cost of insurance coverage. Therefore, without full market participation, the financial foundation supporting the health care system will fail, in effect causing the entire health care regime to “implode.” Unless everyone is required by law to purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty, the revenue base will be insufficient to underwrite the costs of insuring individuals presently considered as high risk or uninsurable.

[jasg]

@Algher

To compare to UHC at the Federal level you get caught up in too many areas. Finally, WHAT UHC model do you take (Germany, France, various provinces of Canada, the UK)?

It has been claimed that the US already uses a bit of all of those. If you are employer insured, Germany. American Indian, France. Retired on Medicare, Canada. Retired or active military, UK. Uninsured, third world.

[theR]

@Bricker

Interestingly, the government itself argued:

Right. This seems to explain it well, whether or not one agrees with the goals or methods.

Here we must note that reforming the market for small- or non-group health insurance is like a three-legged stool that is useless without all three legs.

If (1) either private or public health insurers must accept all comers and may not base premiums on the applicant’s health status, then (2) individuals must be mandated to purchase at least a basic package of health insurance, lest they freeload on the system. Such a mandate, in turn, requires that (3) families be publicly subsidized to make the cost of that basic package affordable to them. A sound reform of the health insurance market cannot have just two of these features. It must have all three.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/lost-in-the-shuffle-the-overarching-goals-of-health-reform/?pagemode=print

[enipla]

@Bricker

Algher has given numerous distinctions between the two.

Yes, there are distinctions between the choice of having children, and the need for health care. Yet the government taxes people that choose to not have children to support those that do.

I’m really OK with that.

I’m also OK with taxing folks that do not have health insurance as a way to pay for some of the things they will need when the inevitable happens.

[Squink]

Devil take the hindmost Romney comes up with a plan the right can love:

Mandatory individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs?

Of course this is completely different than that bad-awful Obamacare mandate, now isn’t it?

Sometimes I doubt the seriousness of our ‘conservative’ brethren.

[Bricker]

@Squink

Devil take the hindmost Romney comes up with a plan the right can love:

Mandatory individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs?

Of course this is completely different than that bad-awful Obamacare mandate, now isn’t it?

Sometimes I doubt the seriousness of our ‘conservative’ brethren.

Somehow I doubt your reading ability. Where does Romney’s plan specify “mandatory” accounts?

[Bricker]

@enipla

Yes, there are distinctions between the choice of having children, and the need for health care. Yet the government taxes people that choose to not have children to support those that do.

I’m really OK with that.

I’m also OK with taxing folks that do not have health insurance as a way to pay for some of the things they will need when the inevitable happens.

That’s fine. You can be OK with it. What you cannot do is claim that support of public education, and consistency, requires support of UHC.

[Grumman]

@Squink

Of course this is completely different than that bad-awful Obamacare mandate, now isn’t it?

What’s your point? Are we supposed to approve of Obamacare just because Mitt Romney liked the idea?

[Squink]

@Bricker

Somehow I doubt your reading ability. Where does Romney’s plan specify “mandatory” accounts?

Starvation is always an option in Romney’s America?