Healthcare Hypocricy?

[Maggie]

'Obamacare' Closer to Supreme Court Review After Administration Declines to Appeal Latest Ruling

The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.

The administration's decision makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case on the health care overhaul in the court's term starting next month, and render its verdict on the law in the midst of the 2012 presidential election campaign.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler disclosed the administration's decision. She declined to elaborate on next moves

In arguments leading up to the appeals court decision in Atlanta, the Obama administration said the legislative branch was using a "quintessential" power -- its constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce, including the health care industry -- when it passed the overhaul law. Administration officials said at the time they were confident the 11th Circuit ruling would not stand.

In that August ruling, Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull said that lawmakers cannot require residents to "enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."

In a lengthy dissent, Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus accused the majority of ignoring the "undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries." He wrote that Congress generally has the constitutional authority to create rules regulating large areas of the national economy

I think that last part is the problem. It's grown far beyond what it was ever supposed to be and the courts continue to let it happen.

This is an interesting move.

[SubGod22]

26 States Appeal Health Care Law to Supreme Court

WASHINGTON – States and a business group opposed to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday for a speedy ruling that puts an end to the law aimed at extending insurance coverage to more than 30 million people.

The high court should strike down the entire law, not just the main requirement that individuals purchase insurance or pay a penalty beginning in 2014, their appeals said.

The filings, on behalf of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, also said the justices should act before the 2012 presidential election because of uncertainty over costs and requirements.

On the issue of timing, their cause got an unexpected boost from retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said voters would be better off if they knew the law's fate law before casting their ballots next year.

The 91-year-old Stevens said in an Associated Press interview that the justices would not shy away from deciding the case in the middle of a presidential campaign and would be doing the country a service. "It would be better to have that known about than be speculated as a part of the political argument," Stevens said in his Supreme Court office overlooking the Capitol.

[SubGod22]

President Obama's Health Care Law Not Fulfilling Promise

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Obama promised health care reform that would lower premiums for the typical family by $2,500.

That year, the average premium for an employer-based family plan rose 5 percent to $12,680. Premiums rose another 5 percent in 2009 and 3 percent in 2010.

But the first batch of Obamacare mandates didn't take effect until late 2010, so their impact wasn't felt until this year. What happened? Premiums surged by 9 percent to more than $15,000 per family.

Those figures come from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which supports Obamacare and estimates the law is contributing at most 2 percentage points to that increase. This estimate conceals the law's crushing impact on many households.

Multiple reports show the news will get worse in 2014, when the waivers expire and the law takes full effect.

MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber projects that six out of 10 consumers in Wisconsin's individual market will see their premiums go up by an average of 31 percent. Many will see much larger increases. Gruber is one of Obamacare's biggest supporters, and was even a paid consultant to the Obama administration. Will the administration now accuse him of spreading misinformation?

In Ohio, some consumers in the individual market will see their premiums rise by 55 to 85 percent. Young, healthy males could see their premiums rise by 90 to 130 percent. And some small businesses will see their premiums rise by 150 percent, according to the actuarial consulting firm Milliman, Inc.

These massive rate hikes will be inflicted by the same president who once described a 39 percent increase by Anthem Blue Cross of California as "jaw-dropping," and a secretary of Health and Human Services who wrote that Anthem's "extraordinary" increases could "make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy." If that's true, then won't Obamacare's much larger premium hikes do the same?

Recent events have also belied Obama's reassurance that "no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. ... If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."

Principal Financial Group responded to the law by dropping out of the market, leaving nearly a million Americans to find new coverage.

[SubGod22]

GOP Wastes Obamacare Opportunity

A new poll released last week shows that support for Obamacare has reached an all-time low. According to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has traditionally found more support for the health-care law than other groups, just 34 percent of Americans now support the law. In fact, barely half of Democrats support the signature achievement of a Democratic president.

It's not hard to see why. Among the revelations in recent weeks:

Insurance premiums are rising. President Obama once promised that the health-care bill would save each of us as much as $2,500 annually on our premiums. But a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums increasing by a whopping 9 percent this year, three times more than the previous year's increase. The average family policy now costs more than $15,000 per year. Not only has Obamacare failed to slow premium growth, but at least two percentage points of that increase is directly attributable to the health-care law's provisions.

[1979Shocker]

Supreme Court will hear health care case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama's main domestic achievement, health care overhaul, setting up an election year showdown.

The decision to hear arguments in the spring allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

"Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider legal challenges to the health reform law and we are pleased the Court has agreed to hear this case," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement reacting to the court's decision. "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses. We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree."

[SubGod22]

If the Supreme Court find this constitutional, we're doomed

[SB Shock]

If the Supreme Court find this constitutional, we're doomed

I suspect they will find it constitutional. We are required by law to buy auto insurance, so it is not that big of leap for Congress to make you purchase health insurance.

Yes it will be a bad precendent, but our nation is about to find out that elections have consequences and the 60-70% who sit on the sideline are going to get a s-sandwich shoved down their throats along with everybody else.

$15,000,000,000,000 decisions well before this have sealed this nations future (or lack of).

[Maggie]

I suspect they will find it constitutional. We are required by law to buy auto insurance, so it is not that big of leap for Congress to make you purchase health insurance.

Sorry but the leap is Carl Lewis like? If you hinge your argument on auto insurance..you will lose the "liberal" SC Justices.

[SB Shock]

So what is your prediction? I am just a engineer sitting in Kansas that watches the ks supreme court tell the legislature how much they "must" spend and am suprised that is not somehow abuse of authority.

A. Supreme court finds it unconstitutional?
B. supreme court finds it constitutional?
C. Supreme court basically sends it back for changes?

[Kung Wu]

How will this turn out? She recuses herself or no?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/14/court-announcement-raises-recusal-questions-kagan-/

[SubGod22]

Wasn't she involved, in some form, with the crafting of this monstrosity?

I'm too lazy to click the link right now and read. If she were involved, she has no business being involved in the ruling.

[SB Shock]

Wasn't she involved, in some form, with the crafting of this monstrosity?

I'm too lazy to click the link right now and read. If she were involved, she has no business being involved in the ruling.

she said no she wasn't involved and will not recluse herself. Clarence Thomas wife works for a group that opposes the health care bill.

[Maggie]

So what is your prediction? I am just a engineer sitting in Kansas that watches the ks supreme court tell the legislature how much they "must" spend and am suprised that is not somehow abuse of authority.

A. Supreme court finds it unconstitutional?
B. supreme court finds it constitutional?
C. Supreme court basically sends it back for changes?

It certainly won't be C; but I choose D: I don’t know. According to conventional wisdom, once Obamacare reaches the Supreme Court, the four reliable liberals - Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg - will find the individual mandate constitutional (I think this is probably true). The four most reliable conservatives - Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts - are expected to vote to declare the mandate unconstitutional. If the conventional wisdom is right, therefore, the final ruling will hinge on Justice Kennedy's vote. Based on past decisions, I think Justice Thomas is the only sure bet to rule against the mandate. That said, Obamacare's opponents do have a very real chance of prevailing.

You see, the “individual mandate” is the key to the structure of Obamacare; without it, all of the reforms the law envisions will unravel - and so will the mechanism for paying for them. The arguments will be centered on the Commerce Clause, the Taxing Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. As I believe I wrote before, opponents of Obamacare will seek to draw a distinction between individual activity and inactivity. This is where, in my opinion, the strained analogy to car insurance falls apart. The law does not require individuals to have car insurance – I don’t have car insurance anymore – you only need car insurance if you purchase a car. Obamacare requires individuals to purchase health insurance simply because they exist and penalizes them monetarily if they don’t have insurance. In any event, I think those challenging the law should ask questions like: How can Obamacare claim to "regulate" interstate "commerce" when the act mandates that citizens purchase a service they do not want to buy? How can Obamacare claim to be "proper" under the necessary and proper clause when it bloats and constipates the national government? And how is it "proper" to divert regulation of health care and insurance from the state and local governments that are more accountable and responsive to the American people?

Proponents of the law will argue that the mandate is a “tax” authorized by the Taxing Clause. But they have a problem with this argument because the mandate is not called a tax, it is called a penalty – furthermore, in early drafts of the law the mandate was referred to as a tax but that language was changed (probably for political reasons).

If the Court concludes that Obamacare is unconstitutional then the following question is raised: Does the mandate's unconstitutionality mean that the entire law is unconstitutional? When a court determines that one or a few provisions of a law are unconstitutional, it should declare void only the unconstitutional provisions unless they seem inextricably intertwined with the rest of the law. One lower court decided yes and the other no. I don’t see how Obamacare can function without the mandate; but I don’t know how the Supreme Court will answer this question, if it is reached.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a very large amount of time for oral arguement - I am glad they did because this is a very important case.

BTW - The Kansas Supreme Court is very liberal.

[MoValley John]

I don't have to own auto insurance even if I own a vehicle. Only if I choose to drive my vehicle on a public road do I need insurance.

[Maggie]

I don't have to own auto insurance even if I own a vehicle. Only if I choose to drive my vehicle on a public road do I need insurance.

That depends on the State in which you live, doesn't it? I don't know, just asking.