Healthcare Hypocricy?

[SubGod22]

Interesting tidbits and numerous links to different sources about how Obamacare will effect a number of different businesses/people

[ISASO]

I heard that a local McD's restaurant owner has calculated that ObamaCare will cost him an additional $150K so he is simply going to stop adding employees.

Congrats, Mr. President.

[RoyalShock]

I read an article yesterday about San Francisco's requirement that all employers offer healthcare. Many restaurants either increased their prices about 4% or added a "health option" surcharge to your bill. I saw several commenters who live in or visit SF say that they now deduct that amount from their tip or don't top at all.

Unintended consequences.


Our premiums are going to jump. Everything will cost more. Wages will stagnate. Then what do they think will happen to the economy?

These are sad times in America.

[Maggie]

ObamaCare and the Constitution

Some of you have wondered about the constitutionality of Obamacare. The WSJ article, linked above, lays out some of the arguments for and against - and I will add one more.

I agree with the reasoning in this article. The pessimism of many pundits is some what puzzling to me. That is not to say the States have a slam dunk Commerce Clause argument. Threshold issues like standing, ripeness, etc. could prove to be as nettlesome as the merits of the case. But the likelihood that the state attorneys general will succeed is far from remote.

It is certainly true that courts have accorded Congress significant, sometimes baffling, latitude under the Commerce Clause - even Scalia has granted wide latitude to Congress via the Necessary and Proper Clause. But in all these cases, Congress was regulating an activity affecting interstate commerce. Defenders of Obamacare’s individual mandate will be placed in the unprecedented position of urging that Congress can regulate inactivity, i.e., a manifest refusal to engage in commerce, because of such inactivity’s attenuated bearing on commerce. Such an elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause would permit Congress to regulate anything and everything.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is, perhaps, the best resort for Obamacare defenders. Essentially, that clause permits Congress to regulate intrastate economic activities where necessary to make interstate commerce more effective. Yet the problem for Obamacare defenders remains: Inactivity isn’t activity.

A fundamental question has to be: If Congress can force individuals to purchase a product because the cumulative effect of such purchases will (allegedly) reduce health-insurance costs nationwide, then as the WSJ editorial points out, what prevents Congress from mandating the purchase of vitamins, gym memberships, green tea, or hand sanitizers? I think the States can make a strong and persuasive argument against Obamacare.

[RoyalShock]

An obvious parallel, at least to me, would be requiring all Americans to purchase high-speed internet so that it will be more accessible and cheaper to rural subscribers.

And I agree with you, Maggie. The general pessimism among the punditry is puzzling, and disconcerting.

Welcome to the United State of America.

[Maggie]

I think some of the pessimism can be explained by the fact that they just don’t care. Cue this moron:


Illinois Democrat on O-Care: “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this”

Note well: He doesn’t mean “I don’t worry about it because I’ve studied the Commerce Clause and I’m confident we’ll win in court.” When pressed, he flatly says he doesn’t know which part of the Constitution justifies the law, which is his way of saying he doesn’t care and hasn’t thought about it. In fact, the best he can do by way of legal authority is to cite life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — which of course comes from the Declaration of Independence. His response, when corrected? “Doesn’t matter to me. Either one.”

All things considered, this clip’s more depressing than the already legendary Hank Johnson clip from last night. Like Madam Speaker, not only does he regard the novel and crucial constitutional issue involved to be beside the point, he almost seems irritated to be asked about it. Reason 8,293,511 why Americans now feel such utter contempt for their representatives.

Oh, and he might be surprised to know that O-Care really doesn’t insure everyone. I didn’t realize that point was still in dispute, least of all for a guy who’s read the bill, ahem, three times.

:ohno: :banghead:

[ISASO]

Why not force everyone to buy a new, energy-efficient car and appliances every three years while you're at it? It will reduce global warming, so that's all the justification you need. If the government finishes its takeover of the insurance industry and the auto industry, won't they be mandating that you have to buy products from the government?

Certainly that's what the Commerce Clause was intended for, right?

[Maggie]

Okay – now this is funny - from the NYT:

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

You had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.... :lol:

Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers

[SubGod22]

Sadly, that doesn't suprise me one bit.

[SubGod22]

Canceled: Hearing That Would Have Grilled CEOs on Health Care

The cancellation came after they realized what everyone already knew - that the companies were required to do what they did because of accounting rules. Waxman and others had reacted with outrage and accused the companies of doing it - in essence, to make health care reform look bad.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, responded to the cancelation saying, "House Democrats canceled this hearing because they don’t want to give America's employers a forum to tell the public how President Obama’s new health care law is already hurting our economy and hampering job creation."

"Chairman Waxman thought he could intimidate businesses into keeping quiet about this new job-killing health care law, but when they called his bluff by continuing to speak out, he chose to pull the plug," Boehner said in a statement.

[SubGod22]

Poll: Opposition to Obama's Health Law Surges

A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds Americans oppose the health care remake 50 percent to 39 percent. Before a divided Congress finally passed the bill and Obama signed it at a jubilant White House ceremony last month, public opinion was about evenly split. Another 10 percent of Americans say they are neutral.

Disapproval for Obama's handling of health care also increased from 46 percent in early March before he signed the bill, to 52 percent currently -- a level not seen since last summer's angry town hall meetings.

[ISASO]

Why all the outrage? Don't the subjects know that they are just supposed to shutup and pay the King's tax?

[Maggie]

From the WSJ:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) includes what it calls an "individual responsibility requirement" that all persons buy health insurance from a private company. Congress justified this mandate under its power to regulate commerce among the several states: "The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section," the law says, ". . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2)." Paragraph (2) then begins: "The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased."

In this way, the statute speciously tries to convert inactivity into the "activity" of making a "decision." By this reasoning, your "decision" not to take a job, not to sell your house, or not to buy a Chevrolet is an "activity that is commercial and economic in nature" that can be mandated by Congress. (emphasis added)

It is true that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly enough to reach wholly intrastate economic "activity" that substantially affects interstate commerce. But the Court has never upheld a requirement that individuals who are doing nothing must engage in economic activity by entering into a contractual relationship with a private company. Such a claim of power is literally unprecedented. (emphasis added)

Spot on... :good: Read the whole thing.

The Insurance Mandate in Peril - First Congress said it was a regulation of commerce. Now it's supposed to be a tax. Neither claim will survive Supreme Court scrutiny.

[Maggie]

Woman died after doctors failed to spot toilet brush in her buttocks

Cindy Corton, 35, was left with the bizarre injury after a drunken fall in a friend's bathroom in 2005.

She was twice seen by hospital staff in the aftermath of the incident and an X-ray was carried out.

But an inquest heard it took Mrs Corton, of Sleaford, Lincolnshire, two years to convince doctors that the handle was lodged in flesh of her bottom.

By then what should have been a routine procedure to remove it had become much more dangerous.

After two unsuccessful operations in 2007, Mrs Corton underwent further, much riskier surgery and died from massive blood loss at Nottingham's Queen's Medical Centre in June last year.

Recording a narrative verdict, coroner Stuart Fisher criticised Dr Killian Mbewe, who first examined Mrs Corton at Grantham hospital.

After the inquest, husband Peter Corton said: "Cindy got a very poor service from the NHS.

"I'm sure she would have got better treatment in foreign countries."

:ohno:

[SubGod22]

Feds Ask Va. Health Reform Lawsuit Be Dismissed

It'll be interesting to see how the courts handle this issue. Although, it will finally be decided at the SC down the road.