Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[Gwynplaine]

I'm posting this in preparation for the upcoming Supreme Court case next month that will hear arguments on the constitutionality of P.P.A.C.A. (Obamacare). Until then just consider this a dumping ground for any general talk about Obamacare or medicine and health insurance etc.


Next month's hearing is Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The representatives of the multi-state lawsuit are Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorodo, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Maine, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa, and Wyoming.
As well as the National Federation of Independent Business as co-plaintiff.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/co...e/#more-131850


The Supreme Court will be hearing a record 5 and a half hours of oral argument, on a 3 day period devoted exclusively to this case. The dates set are March 26th-28th. While the ruling itself won't be known until early June. Here's a summary to give you an idea of the 4 major issues the Supreme Court will be addressing in their ruling:


Day 1- March 26th
Issue 1- Does the TAIA block challenges to the individual mandate until its gone into effect?
Granted 1 hour of argument.
The Tax Anti-Injunction Act is intended to allow for tax collections so that suits don't disrupt them. Despite his initial opposite view, Obama and government defenders have argued that the mandate and penalties are a tax. Opponents claim that it is a fine and not a tax, and that TAIA doesn't apply since the law won't go into effect until 2014.

Day 2, March 27th
Issue 2-Does congress have constitutional power to enact the individual mandate?
Granted 2 hours of argument.
The government argues it can require all citizens to purchase health insurance under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs argue that that it allows for regulation only if a person has chosen to take an action. But that it does not allow for regulating inactivity. Meaning a negative; the non-purchase or non-action to do something like purchase health insurance.

Day 3, March 28th
Issue 3-Is the individual mandate severable from the rest of Obamacare?
Granted 1 hour 30 minutes of argument.
Typically laws include severability clauses that provide provisions of the law remain even if part is declared invalid. The PPACA doesn't and so the question will be addressed if a portion of Obamacare is found unconstitutional, that means the entire thing stands or falls as one.

Issue 4-Does the method of Medicaid funding provided to states amount to commandeering?
Granted 1 hour of argument.
Under PPACA states are basically given the option of either drastically expanding Medicaid, or being completely cut-off from Medicaid funding. Opponents argue that the shear amount of strings attached to funding amounts to a takeover of power of the states budgets and contradicts the 10th amendment.

[Mazmaz]

>trying to sound legitimate
>call it Obamacare

[Yuri-G]

Is the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the act as a whole, or the individual parts being argued?

your answer is: both. see day 3

[Gwynplaine]

>trying to sound legitimate
>call it Obamacare

Uh, yeah? It's just a nickname that is easier and more identifiable than Patients Protection Affordable Care Act.

[Jaybar]

I think the point is that a majority of people use Obamacare as a pejorative, not simply because it's easier to identify.

[Talint]

I liked it back when it was called Romneycare.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Is the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the act as a whole, or the individual parts being argued?

There are only 2 parts being challenged, the mandate and the medicaid funding. They have separate days if that's what your asking and the previous answer wasn't.

And does anyone know if SCOTUS is allowing cameras? I know they normally don't but C-SPAN put in a special request and I haven't heard.

[hey]

I think the point is that a majority of people use Obamacare as a pejorative, not simply because it's easier to identify.

But not everyone. I call it obamacare as well, and even in its butchered state, i think obamacare does a lot of good.

[Gwynplaine]

And does anyone know if SCOTUS is allowing cameras? I know they normally don't but C-SPAN put in a special request and I haven't heard.

That's all I heard as well. Potentially but probably not. I have mixed feelings about using cameras. I'm really curious, but I also recoil at the thought of 24 hour news personalities commenting. Most likely there won't be anything substantial to talk about until the results in June.


And I don't consider Obamacare pejorative or use it that way. It's just like Hillarycare or Romneycare. I guess if there were Bushcare you could go with that, but then you have to dismiss the image of healthcare centered on putang.

[mallister]

what's the problem? the power of pussy heals all.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That's all I heard as well. Potentially but probably not. I have mixed feelings about using cameras. I'm really curious, but I also recoil at the thought of 24 hour news personalities commenting. Most likely there won't be anything substantial to talk about until the results in June.

What I find odd is that they can comment already b/c the SCOTUS allows audio recordings.

[Gwynplaine]

back when it was called Romneycare.

Here's a great PDF that compares them together.
http://www.familiesusa2.org/assets/p...-ObamaCare.pdf

[Talint]

Here's a great PDF that compares them together.
http://www.familiesusa2.org/assets/p...-ObamaCare.pdf

Oh yeah. I know. I was actually a big fan of Romneycare back when I lived in MA. Being unemployed, living with parents, and zero source of income meant I was eligible. When I passed a kidney stone and had to go to the hospital, a $3,000 visit turned into only paying $2 for the painkillers. It's a great program, and made me a fan of Romney. Of course, he's really ran away from the program now bending into political pressure from his party...

It's so absurd. Romneycare was the original response to Hillarycare in 1994 that the republicans touted.

It's not a great program by any means, since it empowers health insurance providers more, and doesn't really do anything for people who can afford the care; but it's a good enough start. The for-profit, greedy assholes who run clinics and medical centers really fucking hate the program though. When my general practitioner learned I was moving to FL, he told his clinic, who then tried to bill me as if though I was ineligible to be on Romeycare, turning what would have been about $2,000 worth of bills under regular insurance ($0 for me, since I was on Romeycare), to a $10,000 bill.

Had to get a lawyer. Wasn't pretty, but in the end I didn't pay those fuckers a dime. And my shitty-ass GP was eventually "dismissed" by his clinic.

[Ragnus]

Romneycare is great for people on MASSHealth but, I was making too much money to go on it while contracting. I was forced to shell out just about $300 a month for single payer health insurance to meet required MA minimum levels. It's not that big of a deal now that I have health insurance through benefits but I would have *loved* to get lesser insurance without being hit by a state fine because I didn't really need it.

[Gwynplaine]

Checking up on this topic I found out there's a Senate bill introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley to permit video recordings of Supreme Court proceedings.
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/...eID_1502=38986

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011 would "permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the Court."

And so even if it were passed no proceedings would necessarily be recorded unless the Justices agree to. More interestingly it seems improper for the Legislature to try and tell the Judicial branch what to do by such a bill. Maybe the Supreme Court will petition themselves to hear a case to overturn it!

[Demosthenes11]

ya thats pretty fucking stupid. It's republicans just wanting more control over the process and to make each individual argument by every judge that goes against their views subject to national attention, call the entire thing a sham by the Obama admin, or pick apart witnesses who they don't agree with.

[Weeks]

Romneycare is great for people on MASSHealth but, I was making too much money to go on it while contracting. I was forced to shell out just about $300 a month for single payer health insurance to meet required MA minimum levels. It's not that big of a deal now that I have health insurance through benefits but I would have *loved* to get lesser insurance without being hit by a state fine because I didn't really need it.

You realize the purpose of insurance, right? The whole point of these programs is to get people insured before they "need" it.

[Mazmaz]

ya thats pretty fucking stupid. It's republicans just wanting more control over the process and to make each individual argument by every judge that goes against their views subject to national attention, call the entire thing a sham by the Obama admin, or pick apart witnesses who they don't agree with.

Are the current members of the Supreme Court mostly democrat? Would you be saying this if they were mostly republican?

[Demosthenes11]

Are the current members of the Supreme Court mostly democrat? Would you be saying this if they were mostly republican?

I think it's 5-4 conservative for the most part.

And considering the GOPs hopes for the 2012 election hinge on Obamacare being found outrageous and nationally embarrassed, yes I would be saying that.

[Yugl]

Are the current members of the Supreme Court mostly democrat? Would you be saying this if they were mostly republican?

The current court is mostly conservative.