FARK.com: (5137192) It's unconstitutional. The people don't want and aren't going to stand for it

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		It's unconstitutional. The people don't want and aren't going to stand for it (abcnews.go.com)		806
		More: Obvious

• • •

10201 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:14 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/5137192

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

806 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

Jaboobinator		2010-03-23 03:44:20 PM

Wrong.

AdolfOliverPanties		2010-03-23 03:46:11 PM

Shouldn't it have been considered unconstitutional for Americans to be forced to foot the bill for every uninsured person who goes to the ER, for people who have exceeded their lifetime maximum if they had coverage, or for bullshiat wars they oppose?

kingoomieiii		2010-03-23 03:49:49 PM

Nothing unconstitutional. Move along...

The_Ancient		2010-03-23 03:52:09 PM

I am still waiting for the Mandate to buy a GM car or Truck, if they can force me to buy Insurance they can force me to buy anything..,.

Racht		2010-03-23 03:52:17 PM

Link

"Americans' emotional responses to the bill's passage are more positive than negative -- with 50% enthusiastic or pleased versus 42% angry or disappointed -- and are similar to their general reactions."

What's that again Subby?

veedeevadeevoodee		2010-03-23 03:54:55 PM

The_Ancient		2010-03-23 04:00:09 PM

Racht: Link

"Americans' emotional responses to the bill's passage are more positive than negative -- with 50% enthusiastic or pleased versus 42% angry or disappointed -- and are similar to their general reactions."

What's that again Subby?

Link (new window)

WOW I can link to Polls too, this one shows 60% opposed, which is closer to reality, unlike Gallup which only polls Democrats,

GAT_00		2010-03-23 04:08:23 PM

Prove it.

FireBreathingLiberal		2010-03-23 04:11:09 PM

The_Ancient:WOW I can link to Polls too, this one shows 60% opposed, which is closer to reality

Uh, this poll was BEFORE the Bill was completed.

USA Today: By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care.

/// The More You Know

TwistedIvory		2010-03-23 04:13:01 PM

The_Ancient: Link (new window)

For some reason something there just strikes me as funny. I can't say what it is, but it doesn't seem like the majority of America DOESN'T want health care reform; instead, it seems like a very, very, very vocal minority is insistent on not having any of it, but that most folk support it.

Sleeping Monkey		2010-03-23 04:19:01 PM

Speak for yourself, rich guy.

The_Ancient		2010-03-23 04:25:52 PM

TwistedIvory: The_Ancient: Link (new window)

For some reason something there just strikes me as funny. I can't say what it is, but it doesn't seem like the majority of America DOESN'T want health care reform; instead, it seems like a very, very, very vocal minority is insistent on not having any of it, but that most folk support it.

Most People, myself included, what reform, this is not reform...

There are 3 Things that should have been done, none of which where

1> Tort Reform. Very Simple, Loser Pays...
2> Ending of Employer Controlled Heath Plans -- Again Very Simple Give people the same tax breaks and incentives as employers get, so people can get their own insurance and not have to depend on employers. This would solve ALOT of the problems and create new wave of competition
3> Ability to buy across state lines.

That is all that we needed.

Shrew2u		2010-03-23 04:27:06 PM

The_Ancient: I am still waiting for the Mandate to buy a GM car or Truck, if they can force me to buy Insurance they can force me to buy anything..,.

Random capitalization? CHECK

Incorrect punctuation? CHECK

Illogical deduction? CHECK

No real point to post? CHECK

Flame-worthy rhetoric? [blank]

If you get any bites, I'll award full points. Otherwise, nicely constructed - 8/10.

Shrew2u		2010-03-23 04:31:32 PM

The_Ancient: There are 3 Things that should have been done, none of which where
...
That is all that we needed.

So, barring companies from engaging in the practice of post-diagnosis rescission wasn't a necessary reform?

Kyosuke		2010-03-23 04:36:07 PM

They may not stand for it, but many will sit at their keyboards and whine about it.

GAT_00		2010-03-23 04:41:04 PM

The_Ancient: That is all that we needed.

Yes, that's all we needed if your plan was to do nothing.

Cyberluddite		2010-03-23 04:41:34 PM

You'll get over it.

ne2d		2010-03-23 04:44:55 PM

If by chance anyone's interested in intelligent commentary on this issue, there are a few entries on Volokh (new window)

El_Perro		2010-03-23 04:49:54 PM

The_Ancient: 1> Tort Reform. Very Simple, Loser Pays...

Which discourages frivolous litigation, but also can discourage meritorious litigation.

Also, where tort reform has been enacted, what has happened to the cost of malpractice insurance? To the cost of medical services?

2> Ending of Employer Controlled Heath Plans -- Again Very Simple Give people the same tax breaks and incentives as employers get, so people can get their own insurance and not have to depend on employers. This would solve ALOT of the problems and create new wave of competition

That is not a bad idea, but I don't think it would solve many problems on its own. Individual health insurance is more expensive than group plans not only because of the tax incentives for employer-based health insurance, but also because of the smaller risk pools.

3> Ability to buy across state lines.

How would this not cause a "race to the bottom" (e.g., every health plan based out of Delaware or some similar state)?

Fark It		2010-03-23 04:56:07 PM

If the government can mandate the purchase of vaccines from private companies in the interest of public health, it can mandate the purchase of insurance from private companies in the interest of public health.

slayer199		2010-03-23 04:56:25 PM

kingoomieiii: Nothing unconstitutional. Move along...

As I said weeks ago, SCOTUS will have the final say one way or another....and unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, I don't think you're qualified to make a statement regarding the Constitutionality of the bill...and neither am I.

Not making a prediction one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS takes the case (not uncommon for such sweeping legislation to be challenged and approved/denied by SCOTUS).

meanyogurt		2010-03-23 04:57:40 PM

TwistedIvory: The_Ancient: Link (new window)

For some reason something there just strikes me as funny. I can't say what it is, but it doesn't seem like the majority of America DOESN'T want health care reform; instead, it seems like a very, very, very vocal minority is insistent on not having any of it, but that most folk support it.

I think most question adding a trillion dollar entitlement onto the sea of red ink the US is sailing. When the Doc Fix is passed HCR will go into the red. Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in. Medicare is in the red and the boomers are coming of age. This isn't responsible reform, its madness.

GAT_00		2010-03-23 04:58:46 PM

ne2d: If by chance anyone's interested in intelligent commentary on this issue, there are a few entries on Volokh (new window)

Why does he say it would have to be in the DC, 5th or 9th districts? Just because those are considered the more liberal districts?

Shrew2u		2010-03-23 05:00:38 PM

El_Perro: The_Ancient: 1> Tort Reform. Very Simple, Loser Pays...

Which discourages frivolous litigation, but also can discourage meritorious litigation.

Also, where tort reform has been enacted, what has happened to the cost of malpractice insurance? To the cost of medical services?

One tort reform story in Missouri: claims have declined, malpractice insurance premiums declined slightly, no mention of healthcare costs to consumers declining. (new window)

TheRealist		2010-03-23 05:02:32 PM

Some Moran on CBS:

I was against this bill until I found out I can save the $ 6000 per year I'm paying for insurance premiums, pay the $ 695.00 /year fine instead, use the hospital ER as my physicians office, don't pay the bill and have the feds reimburse them! Whoo Hooo!! Thanks Congress - you just saved me $5300 per year!

How do these people afford computers?

aden_nak		2010-03-23 05:04:49 PM

The_Ancient: There are 3 Things that should have been done, none of which where

1] Tort Reform. Very Simple, Loser Pays...

That will save somewhere between 2% and 5% of the total cost of health care. At best. I'm not inherently against it, but it doesn't address the problem.

2] Ending of Employer Controlled Heath Plans -- Again Very Simple Give people the same tax breaks and incentives as employers get, so people can get their own insurance and not have to depend on employers. This would solve ALOT of the problems and create new wave of competition

I'm not against that idea either, but how does that create competition? All you have now are a lot of people individually going out and trying to navigate the health insurance market without even the benefit of an HR rep or an ombudsman at their job to help them. I know our HR rep where I work has been very helpful to lots of the folks here (about a 200 person company).

I mean hey, if they want to do it? Fine. Hell, I'd probably take that deal and get a plan that offers more catastrophic coverage and less day-to-day doctor visit type stuff since I don't take advantage of that very much and I don't have kids to worry about. But while it's a good idea, it doesn't actually solve a problem.

3] Ability to buy across state lines.

That one is actually a bad idea. All that will do is cause insurance companies to relocate their headquarters to whichever of the fifty states has the fewest regulations and rules. It has already been tried with other industries (credit cards for example) and proven to be a huge disaster. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it allows them to only have to buy off one state legislature instead of fifty.

That is all that we needed.

What do any of these reforms do to address insurance companies denying people for pre-existing conditions? I can't even think of another type of insurance that could get away with that.

Also, what does it do about insurance companies retroactively rescinding coverage once people get sick? They have actuaries whose sole job is to look over the files of people with large claims, trying to find legal loopholes that let them drop their coverage.

Or insurance companies only being willing to pay for cheaper, less effective treatments because it saves them money? In many cases, that becomes a simple trick of waiting out the clock, tying up payment for the treatment until the patient is beyond help.

Additionally, if every individual gets subsidies, tax breaks and incentives to help pay for their coverage, what is to prevent the costs from rising to eat up those subsidies? In fact, what is to prevent those costs from rising for no damn reason? And if the plan is just for the government to keep raising those incentives, doesn't that mean the government is already paying for universal health coverage? Wouldn't it then be more efficient to just go to single payer and be done with it?

I'm not saying your ideas are bad (well, okay, I'm saying 33% of them are bad). I'm saying they are woefully insufficient to deal with the problems at hand. There seems to be a back-end belief that "competition" will solve all of these other problems, yet there's no proof and no comparative example to back that principle up. Show your work, mate.

ne2d		2010-03-23 05:06:51 PM

GAT_00: ne2d: If by chance anyone's interested in intelligent commentary on this issue, there are a few entries on Volokh (new window)

Why does he say it would have to be in the DC, 5th or 9th districts? Just because those are considered the more liberal districts?

I don't know why he picked those (I don't really know what the reputations are of the circuits or whether those reputations are remotely accurate), but he says that to have a snowball's chance in hell, you'd have to have a very conservative panel.

Lando Lincoln		2010-03-23 05:11:40 PM

Posted from the other thread:

AG for Florida: Republican, running for Governor in 2010
AG for South Dakota: Republican, running for re-election in 2010
AG for Texas: Republican, running for re-election in 2010
AG for Utah: Republican, running for Senate in 2010 (campaign currently suspended)
AG for Nebraska: Republican, running for re-election in 2010
AG for North Dakota: Republican, running for re-election in 2010
AG for Alabama: Republican, running for re-election in 2010
AG for Pennsylvania: Republican, running for Governor in 2010
AG for South Carolina: Republican, running for Governor in 2010
AG for Washington: Republican, running for re-election in 2012

Hmmmm...I think I see a pattern.

Shrew2u		2010-03-23 05:14:18 PM

meanyogurt: I think most question adding a trillion dollar entitlement onto the sea of red ink the US is sailing. When the Doc Fix is passed HCR will go into the red. Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in. Medicare is in the red and the boomers are coming of age. This isn't responsible reform, its madness.

I think having my tax money go towards paying ERs to treat sprained ankles and sniffles is madness...but that is the system we have in place right now. No insurance + no money to paying a doc in a clinic out-of-pocket = ER trip = $hiatload of expense.

Cool story bro:

Many moons ago, my first husband and I didn't have insurance and he had to go to the ER, for something that could have easily been treated by an LNP. Except no clinic (except a free clinic) will see you unless you pay before seeing a medical practitioner. Since there were no free clinics in the area (early 90s Tacoma), off to the ER we went! We were charged $400 for that visit; since we had no money, it went to collections and was never paid...except by all the taxpayers (and those with insurance) who covered the cost to the hospital.

This is what is jokingly referred to as "healthcare" in this country, for tens of millions of Americans.

GAT_00		2010-03-23 05:15:15 PM

ne2d: GAT_00: ne2d: If by chance anyone's interested in intelligent commentary on this issue, there are a few entries on Volokh (new window)

Why does he say it would have to be in the DC, 5th or 9th districts? Just because those are considered the more liberal districts?

I don't know why he picked those (I don't really know what the reputations are of the circuits or whether those reputations are remotely accurate), but he says that to have a snowball's chance in hell, you'd have to have a very conservative panel.

My thoughts too, but he says to go with one of those districts and pray for a conservative pick for your panel. Doesn't make much sense, no. There's no shortage of reasons to support the mandate though, so I don't really worry about the court challenges.

Shrew2u: One tort reform story in Missouri: claims have declined, malpractice insurance premiums declined slightly, no mention of healthcare costs to consumers declining.

So it stopped fake lawsuits but didn't address the problem at all with providing care? Yeah, that only makes perfect sense. I never understood that. There's almost no connection between getting insurance and paying for it and malpractice suits, which are a very small part of overall health care costs.

GAT_00		2010-03-23 05:16:50 PM

Lando Lincoln: Hmmm...I think I see a pattern.

Yeah, I'm not the least bit surprised by that. There will probably end up being one or two Dems in that by the time the suits stop, but the vast majority will be Republicans grandstanding. They don't have a leg and I think even they know it, they're just trying to shiat all over America and hope it gets them votes.

tnpir		2010-03-23 05:17:57 PM

slayer199: kingoomieiii: Nothing unconstitutional. Move along...

As I said weeks ago, SCOTUS will have the final say one way or another....and unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, I don't think you're qualified to make a statement regarding the Constitutionality of the bill...and neither am I.

Not making a prediction one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS takes the case (not uncommon for such sweeping legislation to be challenged and approved/denied by SCOTUS).

And, assuming there are no changes to the Court prior to this case reaching it, the Court will find this legislation constitutional on a 5 (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kennedy) to 4 (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) vote. The majority will cite to precedent and established constitutional jurisprudence, likely concerning Social Security (you're required to pay into it with limited exception) and Medicare (same deal) and find that the commerce clause in addition to the goverment providing for the general welfare makes this constitutional.

Scalia, on the other hand, will write a scathing dissent that comes right out of the GOP playbook.

And then I'll laugh my ass off as partisan hack biatches like Texas AG Greg Abbott continue to whine and cry and claim "the fight isn't over."

The fight is over. There's no going back. Whether you like it, or you don't like it, learn to love it.

Weaver95		2010-03-23 05:36:07 PM

Yes! we're finally repealing the Patriot Act!

*reads article*

Oh for the love of God....

vartian		2010-03-23 05:36:43 PM

The_Ancient: I am still waiting for the Mandate to buy a GM car or Truck, if they can force me to buy Insurance they can force me to buy anything..,.

Well, you'll be waiting a long time.

WOW I can ~~link to Polls too, this one shows 60% opposed, which is closer to reality, unlike Gallup which only polls Democrats,~~ cherry pick polls with old data and then wharbargl about reality not aligning to my world view.

FTFY

SilentStrider		2010-03-23 05:40:03 PM

Weaver95: Yes! we're finally repealing the Patriot Act!

yeah i was hoping the same thing.

SilentStrider		2010-03-23 05:42:11 PM

Oh, and you know, up till now, at least, I was strongly thinking of voting for Tom Corbett in the Gubernatorial race this fall.

Now?

Not a chance in hell.
And if the democrats can't nominate a good candidate in this state, I'm writing in myself or Weaver95.

Mentat		2010-03-23 05:44:10 PM

Why is it that the people only seem to agree with Republicans?

Friskya		2010-03-23 05:44:11 PM

TheRealist: Some Moran on CBS:

I was against this bill until I found out I can save the $ 6000 per year I'm paying for insurance premiums, pay the $ 695.00 /year fine instead, use the hospital ER as my physicians office, don't pay the bill and have the feds reimburse them! Whoo Hooo!! Thanks Congress - you just saved me $5300 per year!

How do these people afford computers?

Actually, I've already heard at least one person at my workplace say essentially the same thing. Say's she'll get the insurance when she's got something that is likely to be long-term mega-expensive, like cancer. Since she can't be turned down for "pre-existing", she figures she has it all worked out.

Flatulent_Flea		2010-03-23 05:44:52 PM

slayer199: but I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS takes the case

There is a clear and required process for cases to move to the SCOTUS. They can't just "pick" what cases to hear.

GAT_00: Why does he say it would have to be in the DC, 5th or 9th districts?

Those would be the districts with jurisdiction over DC -- you know, where they passed the law.

WhyteRaven74		2010-03-23 05:48:19 PM

Weaver95: Oh for the love of God....

say, who's your rep in Congress? I saw a couple of PA reps the other day, and they were uh, how shall I put this? Stupid.

Friskya: she figures she has it all worked out.

She's not very smart is she?

thalassatx		2010-03-23 05:48:51 PM

FireBreathingLiberal: The_Ancient:WOW I can link to Polls too, this one shows 60% opposed, which is closer to reality

Uh, this poll was BEFORE the Bill was completed.

USA Today: By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care.

/// The More You Know

That's not a majority.

Barakku		2010-03-23 05:49:34 PM

Can we repeal the PATRIOT act while we're at it? Please?

/And yes, it's an acronym...the most forced, shiatty acronym ever

vernonFL		2010-03-23 05:50:35 PM

/hot

Friskya		2010-03-23 05:54:55 PM

WhyteRaven74: Weaver95: Oh for the love of God....

say, who's your rep in Congress? I saw a couple of PA reps the other day, and they were uh, how shall I put this? Stupid.

Friskya: she figures she has it all worked out.

She's not very smart is she?

Straight democrat ticket, every time. That's all she looks for - the "D" next to the candidates name.

So, no, she's not very smart.

SilentStrider		2010-03-23 05:56:16 PM

WhyteRaven74: say, who's your rep in Congress? I saw a couple of PA reps the other day, and they were uh, how shall I put this? Stupid.

not sure if his is the same as mine (I don't think it is) but mine is Holden. And yes, he was stupid.

Harold_of_the_Rocks		2010-03-23 05:57:05 PM

YEAH BUT I'M YELLING REAL LOUD SO MY OPINION COUNTS MORE THAN "REASONABLE PEOPLE" AKA COMMIES

WhyteRaven74		2010-03-23 05:59:24 PM

SilentStrider: mine is Holden

Ah yes Holden, he's not bright.

Friskya: Straight democrat ticket, every time. That's all she looks for - the "D" next to the candidates name.

Proof, both sides have their idiot supporters. I know a bunch of R supporters have been mentioning doing the same thing.

Shrew2u		2010-03-23 06:02:02 PM

Here's why I support this health care reform bill:

tl;dr - healthcare for the uninsured is a joke in LA County

Tolstoy:

I live in LA County - population about 10.8 million. 28% of LA County residents lack health insurance - about 3 million individuals. In theory, those who lack insurance have access to free clinics in LA County. There are 114 free clinics in the county. 3,000,000 / 114 = 26,316 people who access each clinic for services.

If, on average, the clientele with access to the clinics go twice per year, that's 52,632 patient stops. If each clinic is open 5 days per week (depends on the budget cuts each year, frankly), each clinic would need to see an average of 219 people per day, or 27 people per hour.

Ever been in one of these clinics? I have, on the "social worker" side. Few of the clinics allow walk-ins - see that 27 patients/hr number above if you can't see why. Even with appointments, the clinics are painfully small and are packed wall to wall with the teeming masses. If you're not sick walking in, you'll catch something waiting for your appointment, that's almost guaranteed.

There's a very dedicated and overworked county staff in those clinics; they do their best under trying conditions, but their best is rarely enough to make a dent in the health care needs of the uninsured. So, many of the uninsured wind up in ERs, many for conditions that are urgent but not an emergency.

Example: my teen daughter occasionally gets a UTI - maybe one every 18 months. I have good insurance for her; I can call her pediatrician and get a same-day appointment, or pop over to the urgent care clinic (insurance only) and be in and out with an Rx in 45 minutes. If I had to take her to a county clinic? Fuggedaboutit - an appointment in 3 weeks won't cut it. That means the ER, and probably $500-600 in charges and 4-5 hours waiting for that same Rx.

Outrageous.

So yes, I embrace any reform or series of reforms that will offer millions of folks in LA County something better than an overcrowded free clinic or a ridiculously expensive ER.

Cyberluddite		2010-03-23 06:09:48 PM

Shrew2u: El_Perro: The_Ancient: 1> Tort Reform. Very Simple, Loser Pays...

Which discourages frivolous litigation, but also can discourage meritorious litigation.

Also, where tort reform has been enacted, what has happened to the cost of malpractice insurance? To the cost of medical services?

One tort reform story in Missouri: claims have declined, malpractice insurance premiums declined slightly, no mention of healthcare costs to consumers declining. (new window)

We have had "tort reform" on medical malpractice in California for 35 years now. In 1975, in response to claims of "out of control malpractice insurance premiums," California enacted "MICRA" (or the "Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act"). For the last 35 years, we've had in California the limitations the Republicans in Congress keep claiming we should have nationwide. These provisions include:

--A $250,000 cap on non-economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc.) in med-mal cases. Go in for an appendectomy and doctor negligently cut off your nuts by mistake? Here's $250K, that's all you get (plus wage losses, which there probably aren't any unless you formerly worked as a porn star). This has not been raised or indexed for inflation since it was passed in 1975.

--Caps on contingent fees for lawyers in med-mal cases, 40% of the first $50,000 recovered; 33% of the next $50,000; 25% of the next $500,000, and 15% of any amount exceeding $600,000. In other words, government regulation of private contracts. Considering how incredibly expensive med-mal cases are to litigate (hiring expert witnesses, etc.), most California lawyers won't take them any more because they don't make enough money.

--No recovery for medical expenses paid by the injured party's health insurer. In any other personal injury tort action (such as a car crash, an assault, etc.), the rule across the country is that the injured party can recover the medical expenses he incurs even if his health insurer paid the bills, because you buy health insurance to protect your own finances, not to protect the finances of the person who injured you (though your health insurer will have a contractual right to place a lien on the recovery, and claim a right to share in the proceeds). In California med-mal cases, the defendant doctor gets to claim credit for the extra expenses caused by his negligence that are paid by the injured party's health insurer (or Medicare, or Medicaid).

--Installment payments of awards--if the doctor does get hit for a judgment, he (or his malpractice insurer) can opt to pay it over years, rather than all up front.

--Short statute of limitations, only one year after the doctor's negligent acts.

As you might imagine, this has cut the number of med-mal cases filed in California to a small fraction of what they were pre-MICRA. Because non-economic damages are limited to $250K and the plaintiff won't recover medical expenses unless they had no insurance, it's not even worth it to file a lawsuit unless there are huge wage-loss claims, such as when the plaintiff is badly handicapped by the doctor's malpractice and had a high-paying job before the malpractice. Especially with the cap on contingent fees, unless the plaintiff can afford to pay hourly fees to the attorney win or lose, it's hard to find a lawyer to take any med-mal claim unless the economic damages are sky-high and liability is a slam-dunk.

The effects on health care costs, and on med-mal insurance premiums? Virtually none. 35 years after enacting the most extreme med-mal tort reform measures in the country, California has some of the highest health care costs in the nation, and some of the highest medical malpractice insurance premiums. The malpractice insurers are making plenty of money, though, and so are the health care providers, so at least it's been a good deal for some groups.

This isn't speculation. This the documented, demonstrated reality, 35 years after medical tort reform was passed in the nation's largest state. It's been a complete scam, and a windfall to the malpractice insurance and health care industries.

Tell me again why we would want to take this nationwide?