Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare

[LawBeefaroni]

And, back to cost. If 1% of wages could cover healthcare for everyone...problem solved instantly.

[silverjon]

Oh my goodness, look at all the upset puppies threatening to move to Canada over the decision.

At least half of those read as purposely ironic, not stupid. Twitter is full of both.

[GreenGoo]

Oh my goodness, look at all the upset puppies threatening to move to Canada over the decision.

#SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this commie country, I'm moving to #Canada #whoswithme

That is right up there with all the old people on medicare protesting this morning against taking from medicare to support socialized medicine.

I particularly like that he thinks this has something to do with free healthcare.

GG you have some room on your couch? I'd move in with Icebear, but I think he snores.

Fine, but don't chew up my laughable wireless bandwidth.

[GreenGoo]

Oh my goodness, look at all the upset puppies threatening to move to Canada over the decision.

At least half of those read as purposely ironic, not stupid. Twitter is full of both.

Agreed, but you're ruining it. Stop it.

[Exodor]

Noted Consitutional scholar Rand Paul weighs in:

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.

[stessier]

Noted Consitutional scholar Rand Paul weighs in:

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.

I...but they....uh, yeah.

Edit: If only he had stuck with the rest of it he would have been fine.

“While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system,” added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor. “This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.”

[Kraken]

Some of us will kibble about the details,

Others of us will quibble.

I'm of two minds. No, three. I'm of three minds about this.

First, it scarcely affects me at all because we've been living with Romneycare for 6 years, and it's worked out alright so far. Of course universal coverage is merely the first step in health care reform; cost containment comes next, and MA is working on that now. But however the Court ruled, I got mine.

Second, I'm glad to see the Court rule on law rather than politics. The legal consensus (as I understood it) was that the mandate was Constitutional, but the conservative Court was expected to throw it out anyway. I'm glad that they did not, and that the US is finally moving toward making health care a right.

Third, I'm sorry to see private, for-profit insurance companies enshrined in law, as that pretty much kills any hope of getting a single-payer system in the foreseeable future. AFAIK VT is the only state that is implementing true socialized medicine. I would have preferred to see Medicare made universal. I also find it really puzzling that conservatives are against the private insurance system that was upheld today, since it was their idea in the first place. Liberals made a huge concession in giving up single payer.

[
Obama's limit will likely cause no changes. 20% overhead is fairly common across medical insurance.

It is generous. MA started out at 20% and gradually stepped that down -- it was 12% this year and it falls to 10% next year. I think we revert to the federal 20% figure after that -- a major windfall for insurers here.

[Enough]

Oh my goodness, look at all the upset puppies threatening to move to Canada over the decision.

At least half of those read as purposely ironic, not stupid. Twitter is full of both.

Yep, some are true, some are satire and some are just trolls. If you check out some of the twitter accounts many come across as attention whores but clearly some genuine in there too. Oh and Obama gets a Dewy Defeats Truman moment of his own.

[El Guapo]

Kraken, if it's any consolation, at least as long as the filibuster is around (and probably for awhile afterwards), I really don't think that single payer was in the cards for at least a few decades even if the Supreme Court had struck the ACA down.

[Kraken]

Kraken, if it's any consolation, at least as long as the filibuster is around (and probably for awhile afterwards), I really don't think that single payer was in the cards for at least a few decades even if the Supreme Court had struck the ACA down.

True dat. Had ACA been voided, we'd have been back at Square One for another generation.

[msduncan]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

In other news, as the George Will writing for the Washington Post points out, Justice Roberts actually teed up future limitations on the Commerce Clause abuse through his written opinion in this case.

Link

Quote:

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”

[GreenGoo]

I hope msd moves up here. His head would asplode the first time he filled out a tax return.

[El Guapo]

We'll see. Since the commerce clause language was not part of the actual decision, it's dicta, and so is as binding on the courts as if I had written it (though admittedly more persuasive). People thought the commerce clause revolution was coming in the 90s when the Rehnquist court actually struck down a set of three laws based on them being outside of the commerce clause power, and that never materialized.

Basically, it's absolutely true that it's there, but honestly I'd regard that as thin gruel for the moment if I were a conservative.

[noxiousdog]

It is generous. MA started out at 20% and gradually stepped that down -- it was 12% this year and it falls to 10% next year. I think we revert to the federal 20% figure after that -- a major windfall for insurers here.

It will be interesting. Insurance has always been very competitive, so it will be interesting how they contain costs. My guess is it will increase fraud and cost containment since it's all pass through. They'll have to cut labor somewhere, and it's unlikely to be on the sales and marketing side.

In the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant because it's the growth of expenses, not the percentage of expenses that matters.

[Isgrimnur]

Insurance has always been very competitive, so it will be interesting how they contain costs. My guess is it will increase fraud and cost containment since it's all pass through. They'll have to cut labor somewhere, and it's unlikely to be on the sales and marketing side.

Customer service. Same as it ever was.

[stessier]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

That's not how I would characterize it, but ok.

Not sure what November is going to change. The president can't veto a law already in place. I'd be surprised if both houses and the president end up in the same party.

[Grundbegriff]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

Not sure what November is going to change. The president can't veto a law already in place.

I believe Romney's preferred technique is to grant Obamacare waivers to all states and entities.

[DocDarm]

Wow...I can't believe people are upset about this. It's like, politics trumps real-life. How can anyone NOT want everyone to be insured?

[stessier]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

Not sure what November is going to change. The president can't veto a law already in place.

I believe Romney's preferred technique is to grant Obamacare waivers to all states and entities.

I haven't seen that. Can you explain or point to a source? I promise to read the links this time.

[stessier]

Wow...I can't believe people are upset about this. It's like, politics trumps real-life. How can anyone NOT want everyone to be insured?

You can want everyone to be insured with out liking the federal government forcing you to be insured.

[Enough]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

I swear the righties are getting to be the new Politically Correct police these days. Sorry if we hurt your feelings MSD, though I don't even know what would count for gloating in this thread. And its not like anyone on OO is as black and white died in the wool fan of Obamacare anywhere to the degree that we have those dead set against it.

And let's just admit the phrase "spiking the football" has been old and busted since bin Laden got taken out and all we heard on fox and the talking heads for weeks was that silly point ad nauseam. Seriously, what happened to bright, original and funny righties? Back in the day it was the Dems that where total humor dunderheads and Tipper Gore was leading the PC Police, heh. Silly season is coming.

[Arcanis]

Wow...I can't believe people are upset about this. It's like, politics trumps real-life. How can anyone NOT want everyone to be insured?

I can't speak for others, but my thoughts are this bill was a turd that had some good items in it. I think way too much of the bill was completely irrelevant to the point of the bill, mostly in "buying" the votes needed to get it to pass. I think this will totally fail at one of the originally stated reasons for existence, controlling medical costs. I also think this hybrid approach between a free market solution and a single payer system will ultimately not achieve anything constructive, I'm of the opinion that going full tilt in either direction would have been a more successful solution even if I didn't like it.

I think people getting medical care is important, the insurance is just a means to that end. I also think that until people are responsible for the costs of their care they will always demand the latest & greatest care even if the tried and true is good enough for their needs and significantly cheaper. There will need to be lots of changes in the mentality of the American people before medical costs will be controllable without some sort of arbitrary rationing of care. Just my thoughts and best answer to your question.

[Grundbegriff]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

Not sure what November is going to change. The president can't veto a law already in place.

I believe Romney's preferred technique is to grant Obamacare waivers to all states and entities.

I haven't seen that. Can you explain or point to a source? I promise to read the links this time.

http://goo.gl/DjHLU

[Grundbegriff]

Since the commerce clause language was not part of the actual decision, it's dicta....

Which part of the PDF counts as "the actual decision" and which part is obiter?

[Chrisoc13]

Wow...I can't believe people are upset about this. It's like, politics trumps real-life. How can anyone NOT want everyone to be insured?

You really can't see both sides of this? You are a physician, a fair number of your colleagues do not agree with the ACA (unless you work at an academic center). You should be well aware of people upset about this ruling.

While most physicians certainly want everyone to have insurance there are diverse opinions on how to achieve this. Physicians are far from unified on this position, why would you think everyone thinks like you do?

Your comment is similar to saying "How can anyone be opposed to dropping the nuke on Japan? I how can anyone NOT want WWII to end?" Obviously this is an extreme example, but you pulled out a positive of what is a largely unpopular piece of legislation and used it to make those who disagree with you look heartless. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[Exodor]

I figured I would come here to find you guys spiking the football, and I was right. Spike it while you can, because November is right around the corner.

I haven't really seen any spiking the football in this thread.

That would be something like gleefully wathching this series of clips from Fox News as they try to digest the decision.



But nobody's doing that.



Shit, I don't even much like the ACA - it's a very small reform step that works really, really hard to keep insurance companies afloat. After dealing with insurers for a year I say fuck 'em all and let's implement a single-payer plan.

[Exodor]

I can't speak for others, but my thoughts are this bill was a turd that had some good items in it.

Which parts are brown and smelly?

Your comment is similar to saying "How can anyone be opposed to dropping the nuke on Japan? I how can anyone NOT want WWII to end?

Did you really just compare expanding access to medical care to atomic holocaust?


Congrats, you just trumped Mike Pence who merely compared it to 9/11.

[Chrisoc13]

I can't speak for others, but my thoughts are this bill was a turd that had some good items in it.

Which parts are brown and smelly?

Your comment is similar to saying "How can anyone be opposed to dropping the nuke on Japan? I how can anyone NOT want WWII to end?

Did you really just compare expanding access to medical care to atomic holocaust?


Congrats, you just trumped Mike Pence who merely compared it to 9/11.

Nope. I don't think it is the same at all. Reading comprehension course for you, I did say that was obviously an extreme example. Sometime people go over the top to make a point, than people with reading comprehension issues (insert Exodor) decide to take issue with it, while the point is still valid. "OMG you think giving everyone healthcare is like dropping the atomic bomb!!!!! #OMGOMGOMGSTUPIDCONSERVATIVE"

Come on Exodor you can do better than that. Doc pulled the "how heartless are you?" card and I called him on it. There are plenty of reasonable reasons to not be pleased with ACA without being a cold heartless monster trying to keep the uninsured down.

Edit to add: Seriously Exodor, in reading it one more time I think your jumping to conclusions is ridiculous. I was commenting on the manner of debate which Doc was using, not the actual legislation in question. For you to then take that and apply my criticism of his manner of debate to the legislation is either ridiculous, or a complete lack of reading comprehension. Give me a break.

[SpaceLord]

Where is this fucking football msduncan is dreaming that everyone that's not him or YK on the forum is spiking? I swear, I'm not sure what the color the sky is in the little world msduncan lives in.

[Exodor]

I swear, I'm not sure what the color the sky is in the little world msduncan lives in.

Pretty sure it's Crimson.

[GreenGoo]

Where is this fucking football msduncan is dreaming that everyone that's not him or YK on the forum is spiking? I swear, I'm not sure what the color the sky is in the little world msduncan lives in.

I admit to being gleeful but only after msd arrived with his "who'll have the last laugh come November?!"

Which really has nothing to do with the SC ruling at all, come to think of it.

[Kraken]

It is generous. MA started out at 20% and gradually stepped that down -- it was 12% this year and it falls to 10% next year. I think we revert to the federal 20% figure after that -- a major windfall for insurers here.

It will be interesting. Insurance has always been very competitive, so it will be interesting how they contain costs. My guess is it will increase fraud and cost containment since it's all pass through. They'll have to cut labor somewhere, and it's unlikely to be on the sales and marketing side.

In the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant because it's the growth of expenses, not the percentage of expenses that matters.

It does make those $100 million CEO salaries harder to justify.

[killbot737]

I'll show you how to spike a football but good!

Facebook status update: Just got nominated to head up a death panel today! WOOHOO!

[Isgrimnur]

I think people getting medical care is important, the insurance is just a means to that end. I also think that until people are responsible for the costs of their care they will always demand the latest & greatest care even if the tried and true is good enough for their needs and significantly cheaper. There will need to be lots of changes in the mentality of the American people before medical costs will be controllable without some sort of arbitrary rationing of care. Just my thoughts and best answer to your question.

I'm pretty sure most of those who are currently insured have co-pays and deductibles. My insurance is pretty decent, but I can still take a hit of several thousand dollars if my health goes pear-shaped, like needing one's tonsils ripped out.

The ones that aren't insured and are using ERs for medical care are the ones that don't care what it costs, but they've long ago given up on having a decent credit rating or a job that would provide insurance. But they're not in there demanding the latest and greatest in hip replacements, either.

[Smoove_B]

Seriously. If we're "spiking the football" here on OO, you should probably just unplug from the Internet until December. Or go hang out with the Freepers.

[Isgrimnur]

Spoiler:

I thought the fact that it was from the Massachusetts football team was appropriate.

[Rip]

I think people getting medical care is important, the insurance is just a means to that end. I also think that until people are responsible for the costs of their care they will always demand the latest & greatest care even if the tried and true is good enough for their needs and significantly cheaper. There will need to be lots of changes in the mentality of the American people before medical costs will be controllable without some sort of arbitrary rationing of care. Just my thoughts and best answer to your question.

I'm pretty sure most of those who are currently insured have co-pays and deductibles. My insurance is pretty decent, but I can still take a hit of several thousand dollars if my health goes pear-shaped, like needing one's tonsils ripped out.

The ones that aren't insured and are using ERs for medical care are the ones that don't care what it costs, but they've long ago given up on having a decent credit rating or a job that would provide insurance. But they're not in there demanding the latest and greatest in hip replacements, either.

I wonder if that will change? If they now are entitled to the same care as anyone else and have nothing so pay no penalty or anything else it would appear. Will they now expect to get the same care. I know there is one hospital here that gets pretty much all the uninsured patients and people who have insurance generally avoid it.

I may have to start going to the doctor every piddly thing I can think of. might as well get something out of my money. Maybe good painkillers if nothing else.

Hmmmm, I wonder if the street price would allow people to sell prescribed painkillers to make enough to pay for the ACA tax?

[Isgrimnur]

As far as I know, people that pay the penalty still aren't going to have health coverage unless they qualify under the extended Medicaid plans.

There's still going to be an area where paying the penalty is cheaper than paying for coverage unless either the states or the feds subsidize it. They're not all of a sudden going to be standing in line with you for a knee replacement.

[Enough]

This picture might need captioning:

[stessier]

Spoiler:

I thought the fact that it was from the Massachusetts football team was appropriate.

I think the best part is he's spiking it on the Bills.