Scalia the Socialist?

[^_^ 5,021]

(CNN) -- Suppose the Supreme Court does rule that the health care mandate is unconstitutional? What happens then?

The famous individual mandate is just one piece of the new health care law enacted in 2010. Take away the mandate, and here are two principal elements left behind:

-- A huge expansion of the Medicaid program. The majority of those who'd gain health coverage under the new health care law, an estimated 18 million people, would gain it from being enrolled in Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Even before the new health care law, Medicaid was a huge program, covering one in six Americans. It's on its way to becoming bigger still, whatever happens to the individual mandate.

-- Tough new rules on insurance companies. The new health care law forbids insurers to refuse coverage on the basis of "pre-existing conditions." All applicants must be accepted, and they must be covered at the same price as the other members of the insured group.

Now let's war-game what happens post-mandate.

...

If the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional the plan for universal coverage through private insurance, the U.S. will continue to evolve toward a government-led system -- albeit one much more expensive, and much less satisfactory, than the government systems of other advanced democracies.

Perhaps after a decade or two of discontent, somebody else will try another reform. But this time, the reform will proceed as an outright government program. There won't be any choice, if the Supreme Court of 2012 precludes as unconstitutional the private-sector alternative -- meaning that today's would-be champions of the free market will have unwittingly brought about the grandest expansion of government control since the 1930s.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/opinion/frum-government-health-care/index.html

Edited April 2, 2012 by \

[james&olya 1,121]

I would certainly concur with this viewpoint! Returning to the severely broken system that was/is in existence prior to the reforms of Obamacare is no solution. Our current system is broken and will bankrupt the country. Private insurance is becoming just as unaffordable as Medicare, even more so as there are fewer provisions to control costs with private insurance!

Republicans have been preaching the glories of privatisation for everything but when Obama tries to give them what they want they turn on it! The truth is that they don't want anything provided by or mandated by government if it is going to the masses, especially minorities! If it involves government subsidies or handouts to big oil, big banks, etc then they are all for it! They would like nothing more than to destroy the ACA (Obamacare) by any means possible. Then if they could privatise medicare maybe they have in mind to attack it as unconstitutional as a privatised program and get rid of it altogether? It seems Obama's attempts at a bipartisan solution to health-care insurance has just given the repubs the opening they need to set in motion their plan to destroy all of the socialist 'new deal' programs they have never liked. It will be interesting to see if the repubs can still get all their sheep to go along with their plans by voting for them in November. It amazes me they have gotten this far.

My hope is that people finally wake up to what has been happening and reject the republican plan so resoundingly that we will finally begin moving forward again on issues like single-payer universal health insurance. Otherwise the dismantling of the social safety net will continue at an accelerated pace as will the increasing giveaways to those who already have the most! (See the republican Ryan budget proposal passed by the republican majority in the house!)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional the plan for universal coverage through private insurance...

It's the compliance mechanism that's at issue, isn't it? The Congress could have gone about it differently and the SCOTUS wouldn't be involved. They could have passed a tax that everyone pays to fund uncompensated care. They could, in the same legislation, also pass a tax credit equal to the uncompensated care tax that is paid to every taxpayer that carries health insurance. Voila. You have accomplished the very same thing - pushing people to buy insurance - private insurance - or pay a tax. And there would be no case the SCOTUS would ever have seen before it.

I do think the argument can be made that invalidating the individual mandate would push the health care insurance system towards more government. If the guaranteed issue remains standing, health insurance rates will skyrocket because a lot of currently healthy people would drop their coverage knowing that they can get coverage when they need it. Health insurance companies will have to charge exorbitant amounts to make the math work. There will be no private health insurance market left leaving the feds to sweep it all up - Medicare for all. Maybe that was the evil plan all along and the Right is giving it a violent shove towards materializing.

[james&olya 1,121]

It's the compliance mechanism that's at issue, isn't it? The Congress could have gone about it differently and the SCOTUS wouldn't be involved. They could have passed a tax that everyone pays to fund uncompensated care. They could, in the same legislation, also pass a tax credit equal to the uncompensated care tax that is paid to every taxpayer that carries health insurance. Voila. You have accomplished the very same thing - pushing people to buy insurance - private insurance - or pay a tax. And there would be no case the SCOTUS would ever have seen before it.

I do think the argument can be made that invalidating the individual mandate would push the health care insurance system towards more government. If the guaranteed issue remains standing, health insurance rates will skyrocket because a lot of currently healthy people would drop their coverage knowing that they can get coverage when they need it. Health insurance companies will have to charge exorbitant amounts to make the math work. There will be no private health insurance market left leaving the feds to sweep it all up - Medicare for all. Maybe that was the evil plan all along and the Right is giving it a violent shove towards materializing.

That certainly appears plausible!

An alternative 'compliance mechanism' that would be a very 'right-wing' kind of solution would be to leave all the rest of the ACA intact and rescind the mandate that hospitals provide free care in emergencies under 'EMTALA'. If everybody was put on notice that they must have either insurance or cash up front for the ambulance and their ER care the problem would be solved. It would no longer be as inhumane if everyone had access to affordable health insurance. Not my preferred system but still better than the 'system' we have now!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That certainly appears plausible!

An alternative 'compliance mechanism' that would be a very 'right-wing' kind of solution would be to leave all the rest of the ACA intact and rescind the mandate that hospitals provide free care in emergencies under 'EMTALA'. If everybody was put on notice that they must have either insurance or cash up front for the ambulance and their ER care the problem would be solved. It would no longer be as inhumane if everyone had access to affordable health insurance. Not my preferred system but still better than the 'system' we have now!

rescinding EMTALA? That would be dissing The Gipper. You sure they'd go down that path?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

rescinding EMTALA? That would be dissing The Gipper. You sure they'd go down that path?

It's not that effective anyways. Typical MO for the ER now, is as soon as you are barely stabilized, they call you a cab, and refer you to a doctor whose office is away from the hospital campus.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not that effective anyways. Typical MO for the ER now, is as soon as you are barely stabilized, they call you a cab, and refer you to a doctor whose office is away from the hospital campus.

Right. And if you don't go to that doctor 'cause you can't, then you'll be back at the ER for more "free" care. We pour money down that drain until the inevitable happens and the patient kicks the bucket. But at least we can all be satisfied that the patient kicked the bucket as a free person not under any mandate to take care of his or her own hospital bills. Those, the rest of us get to pick up and pay for.

[james&olya 1,121]

rescinding EMTALA? That would be dissing The Gipper. You sure they'd go down that path?

Reagan was well to the left of current right-wing conservatives. Now it seems like one of those contests where the bar keeps getting set lower to see how low you can contort yourself and still get under on your feet! The right just cannot be 'right' enough!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Reagan was well to the left of current right-wing conservatives. Now it seems like one of those contests where the bar keeps getting set lower to see how low you can contort yourself and still get under on your feet! The right just cannot be 'right' enough!

It's the size of the crowd, not necessarily the position they take. The country is center-right, and for the last couple of decades, that really hasn't changed. It's still a Puritan nation, as much as the right and left coasts try and tell flyover county that is not the case.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

rescinding EMTALA? That would be dissing The Gipper. You sure they'd go down that path?

They'd be doing hospitals a favor by rescinding it because then they wouldn't LOSE money to Medicare and Medicaid on top of the leeches who come into the hospital...

Actually if a hospital doesn't want to take medicare/medicaid they can ignore EMTALA all day long.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I would certainly concur with this viewpoint! Returning to the severely broken system that was/is in existence prior to the reforms of Obamacare is no solution. Our current system is broken and will bankrupt the country. Private insurance is becoming just as unaffordable as Medicare, even more so as there are fewer provisions to control costs with private insurance!

Republicans have been preaching the glories of privatisation for everything but when Obama tries to give them what they want they turn on it! The truth is that they don't want anything provided by or mandated by government if it is going to the masses, especially minorities! If it involves government subsidies or handouts to big oil, big banks, etc then they are all for it! They would like nothing more than to destroy the ACA (Obamacare) by any means possible. Then if they could privatise medicare maybe they have in mind to attack it as unconstitutional as a privatised program and get rid of it altogether? It seems Obama's attempts at a bipartisan solution to health-care insurance has just given the repubs the opening they need to set in motion their plan to destroy all of the socialist 'new deal' programs they have never liked. It will be interesting to see if the repubs can still get all their sheep to go along with their plans by voting for them in November. It amazes me they have gotten this far.

My hope is that people finally wake up to what has been happening and reject the republican plan so resoundingly that we will finally begin moving forward again on issues like single-payer universal health insurance. Otherwise the dismantling of the social safety net will continue at an accelerated pace as will the increasing giveaways to those who already have the most! (See the republican Ryan budget proposal passed by the republican majority in the house!)

None of this matters James. It is not the duty of SCOTUS to provide healthcare, only to decide if it is constitutional or not. If it is not, waht happens after that is none of their concern. That is for congress to deal with.

If what Republicans have been suggesting for retirement is also unconstitutional then I guess they have to find another way. Supreme Court rulings DO have consequences for other legislation, yes it is true. So what?

If ther mandate is struck down the ONLY thing "destroying" Obamacare would be the lack of an alternative funding source written into the law. DEMs fault. Heck they do it for city bike paths, but not for national health care? Seriously?

This was poorly crafted legislation, sloppy. Our good Senator Sanders (Soc.-VT) introduced an amendment to have single payer healthcare like we have in Vermont, like thay have in Canada and UK. It got shot down by DEMOCRATS! Republicans at the time had NO ability to turn down anything, Dems had an absolute majority of both houses.

We, the people, gave ALL the power to the Dems in 2008 because they said they would do this. They DID NOT. we gave them a liberal President an absolute filibuster proof Senate and a Super Majority in the House and they BLEW IT! We did everything BUT write the effin' law for them and they couldn't pull it off IN TWO YEARS! Fcktards.