US Health Care's Individual Mandate Ruled Unconstiutional

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-appeals-court-declares-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-2011-8

Not surprising, but where do we go from here? The only reason the mandate existed in the first place was because the Democrats compromised so much on single payer/government option. Does this mean the Democrats/Obama will double down on what they actually wanted, or will we go back to pre-healthcare bill days?

 

This is one of the situations when I really have no idea how I feel. On one hand I totally agree with:

On the other hand, I work in an ER, and we're not allowed to refuse treatment based on ability to pay, and I don't really think that the government should bear the responsibility for people who are too irresponsible to get health insurance. And then again, I know not everyone can afford health insurance. I know that we can't saddle people who can't afford insurance into a possible lifetime of debt. I really don't know what to think, and this is why I will never go into politics.

 

The Supreme Court, eventually.
Rulings on the healthcare plan are pretty much split 50/50, so far. They need run their course through the appellate process and eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

In all the appellate courts so far, with the exception of one judge on the 11st circuit and one on the 6th (if I am not mistaken), pretty much everyone else has voted along party lines. This is pointing clearly to a 5-4 supreme court decision, with Kennedy being the swing vote again.

 

I was about to ask how this had made it to the Supreme Court already and I hadn't noticed. It should perhaps go without saying, but until the Supreme Court rules on something, there's no way to say that it's unconstitutional. Lower courts can give their opinion, of course, and that's binding until appeal, but it doesn't hold any long term weight until the Supreme Court has its say.

I'd like to hope by the time/before this one gets there we'll have a better proposal set up and passed than the fairly ridiculous option that everyone compromised to do.

 

Regardless of whatever courts or obstacles are in its path, it will pass; it's what what the controllers want.

 

If the individual mandate is eventually struck down, that will take a broken law and break it even more. I'm pretty sure the individual mandate was in there to reduce the risk in insurance pools, so that insurance companies could still keep their profits even while they're being forced to cover people with preexisting conditions.

 

The mandate to buy insurance from a for-profit industry is absurd.
I'm glad it was struck down.
Single-payer/ Medicare for all type plan makes much more sense if we are going to ditch the current system.

 

If the supreme court strike down it will be revisited in his second term

 

Pretty much. When federal law mandates everyone to have insurance, the insurance companies will have a hell of a time justifying dropping you or not accepting you. From a strict constructionist standpoint, this is clearly unconstitutional, but I don't accept strict constructionism as a valid interpretation.

The simple fact is that single-payer insurance (retaining a private system of care providers, not establishing a national health service) is 3 to 4 times cheaper both per capita and as a percentage of GDP than our current system. I don't agree with a NHS type system, but I consider a national single payer system that covers every single citizen and resident of the US the only acceptable option. Even aside from the practical considerations, there is no ethical way to balance a profit motive against human health and suffering.

 

If/when the Supreme Court looks at the heath care bill it will happen in Obamas second term at about 18 months in with Congress reconstituted with a new Democratic majority and by the another vacancy looming on the court itself
Seniors will have come to be comfortable with savings he new law provides them and the populous will have looked at how they will benifit and will find favor in it
and
By that time Mr Obama will have realized that the utopia he'd hoped for aint gonna happen. Working with the other side of the aisle hand in hand looks great on paper but.... He will take the control of the government we all hoped he would have done in his first term and adjust the law through legislation along more Democratic ideals

 

I think he knows his utopia ain't gonna happen, his propositions fucked up by his electorate. The Supreme Court doesn't reside here unless all of us are part of it, & we seem unable to agree on anything. ...does anybody think they know what recomposing our supposed constitution (as opposed to our constitutions) might enable?

 

I just know that, if my employers stopped contributing, I'd be out of the health insurance buying market (barring some unforeseeable windfall). I'd be in violation of the law. The participation mandate, without an economically viable safety net, was an unbelievably stupid provision enacted by an increasingly stupid legislature.

Taxes, license and use fees, etc. are a fact of life in America. These contribute to paying for government operations and services. If you insist that I purchase health insurance, you should provide me with an option. I kinda feel that way about auto insurance, but at least I have the option of whether or not to own a vehicle.

 

Indeed, but you have no option when it comes to owning a body. When those who control you by laws & in their own minds convince you that they do, you resist or succumb. Which would you rather? With the numbers no longer "guaranteed" there is no security in society. Mandates have been unconstitutional only since the suspicion became popular that we can't afford them. This strikes me so hard that I can see stars as extraordinary stupidity compounded by greed.

 

OCM, the word that jumps out from your response is "greed." The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have more influence on legislation than the electorate. We could hijack this into a discussion of campaign finance, but that would address only the visible money involved.

 

Taking physical care of us all could be easily handled, if I understand you well enough?

 

No, not easily. I may be a dreamer, but not a total Pollyanna.
I would stop short of all-out socialism, but society does not benefit from having a large portion of the population unhealthy, hungry and under educated. If the money, even a significant percentage of it, were diverted from buying political favor and applied in those areas, we'd all benefit. I wouldn't propose a welfare state, just wise and compassionate stewardship.

 

I really wish that "socialism" and "welfare" weren't seen as such dirty words in the US. I should not be looked at as a bad person because I want a basic standard of living to be guaranteed to my fellow man.

 

Social welfare won't occur until the populace cares enough to provide it. It's very confusing to me why so many care so little about those who could as easily be them. Did I say that right?