Primary 2012: An austere OP for an austere era

Hachface

Burtletoy wrote:

While striking down the mandate, the Court ruled that it was severable from the rest of the law.

"The Act's other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate's excision," the majority wrote.

So it looks like the only part the lower courts would overturn is the mandate, not the entire thing, yeah?

Would that allow the SCOTUS to throw away the entire thing, or would their ruling only apply to the sections the previous courts said was illegal?

SCOTUS can do whatever the hell it wants.

Marty81

Delzhand wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

I can't see the endgame for this decision. If the mandate goes away, then I (who already don't have health insurance) wait until I get sick, since insurance providers can't reject me for pre-existing conditions. Insurance costs for healthy people paying in skyrockets due to everyone else doing the same, until ultimately insurance is prohibitively expensive for everyone, and then...?

Once they can't reject you over pre-existing conditions, will they be allowed to just choose not to cover you for other reasons (like having gaps in coverage)? I don't see anything on the wikipedia article about this.

spool32

Without the mandate, the whole house of cards disintegrates. The rest of the bill is unworkable without the expanded pool of insured people.

Lawndart

enlightenedbum wrote:

Burtletoy wrote:

Yeah, isn't the mandate dying a good thing for us people that want single-payer?

Like, overturn the individual mandate and then the Health Insurance industry all goes out of business.

Then government healthcare for all.

Or people die. This is the issue with the Madman theory the GOP is currently operating under.

The biggest irony here is that the individual insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea, first advanced by Republicans in Congress during the Clinton health care debacle as a way to fend off single payer.

I'm pretty certain that the negative impact of the mandate being overturned will fall on individuals, not insurance companies, although there's a tiny shred of a chance that the negative impact of that will lead to single payer. Or more deregulation.

I'd sooner see the mandate stay in, and once the flaws in the compromise health care reform plan become apparent have the debate shift to enacting single payer, since there's less of a chance of sick people being fucked over.

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

shryke

spool32 wrote:

Without the mandate, the whole house of cards disintegrates. The rest of the bill is unworkable without the expanded pool of insured people.

Oh, it still works. It just bankrupts the health insurance industry while it does.

spool32

CommunistCow wrote:

So I just watched the Maddow bit on Perry's announcement. It seems like a pretty good plan to announce on the day of the Iowa Straw poll in SC and NH. This looks like it might steal some thunder from the other candidates and then he ends up showing up in Iowa on Sunday.

Perry is a very cagey and ruthless campaigner. Of the primary group, I think he has the strongest campaign skills.

enlightenedbum

Lawndart wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Burtletoy wrote:

Yeah, isn't the mandate dying a good thing for us people that want single-payer?

Like, overturn the individual mandate and then the Health Insurance industry all goes out of business.

Then government healthcare for all.

Or people die. This is the issue with the Madman theory the GOP is currently operating under.

The biggest irony here is that the individual insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea, first advanced by Republicans in Congress during the Clinton health care debacle as a way to fend off single payer.

I'm pretty certain that the negative impact of the mandate being overturned will fall on individuals, not insurance companies, although there's a tiny shred of a chance that the negative impact of that will lead to single payer. Or more deregulation.

I'd sooner see the mandate stay in, and once the flaws in the compromise health care reform plan become apparent have the debate shift to enacting single payer, since there's less of a chance of sick people being fucked over.

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

Obama signed it and he is an anti-American sleeper agent sent to destroy the country.

shryke

Lawndart wrote:

enlightenedbum wrote:

Burtletoy wrote:

Yeah, isn't the mandate dying a good thing for us people that want single-payer?

Like, overturn the individual mandate and then the Health Insurance industry all goes out of business.

Then government healthcare for all.

Or people die. This is the issue with the Madman theory the GOP is currently operating under.

The biggest irony here is that the individual insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea, first advanced by Republicans in Congress during the Clinton health care debacle as a way to fend off single payer.

I'm pretty certain that the negative impact of the mandate being overturned will fall on individuals, not insurance companies, although there's a tiny shred of a chance that the negative impact of that will lead to single payer. Or more deregulation.

I'd sooner see the mandate stay in, and once the flaws in the compromise health care reform plan become apparent have the debate shift to enacting single payer, since there's less of a chance of sick people being fucked over.

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

Actually it predates that. "Obamacare" is basically exactly the same as the health reform the fucking Heritage Foundation was pushing back in the late 80s.

Burtletoy

Lawndart wrote:

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

The first 5 letters?

Taramoor

Burtletoy wrote:

Lawndart wrote:

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

The first 5 letters?

They'll insist on repeal because the Federal Government isn't allowed to force the taxpayer to buy from a private company.

Dr Mario Kart

The strange thing is that there isnt actually a mandate.

Boring7

Taramoor wrote:

Burtletoy wrote:

Lawndart wrote:

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

The first 5 letters?

They'll insist on repeal because the Federal Government isn't allowed to force the taxpayer to buy from a private company.

That's what the mandate is.

Unless you're sarcastically referring to the Republican penchant for making things up and I missed it...

Taramoor

Boring7 wrote:

Taramoor wrote:

Burtletoy wrote:

Lawndart wrote:

Edit: To be more on topic, if the mandate is overturned before the 2012 election, what's the GOP rationale for wanting to repeal Obamacare?

The first 5 letters?

They'll insist on repeal because the Federal Government isn't allowed to force the taxpayer to buy from a private company.

That's what the mandate is.

Unless you're sarcastically referring to the Republican penchant for making things up and I missed it...

I'm saying that they'll continue to harp on the mandate even after it's removed.

Detharin

Delzhand wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

I can't see the endgame for this decision. If the mandate goes away, then I (who already don't have health insurance) wait until I get sick, since insurance providers can't reject me for pre-existing conditions. Insurance costs for healthy people paying in skyrockets due to everyone else doing the same, until ultimately insurance is prohibitively expensive for everyone, and then...?

It is simple really, without the blatantly unconstitutional shit the plan cannot work because of how easy it is to scam. The end game is Obamacare dies 5-4, and our legislative branch goes back to the drawing table to try again. Hell the entire plan was so badly designed I am half convinced their end goal was to just let it be so horrible they could get popular support for what they really want.

Captain Carrot

So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.

Boring7

Captain Carrot wrote:

So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.

Though I recognize the necessity, I actually have difficulty with the constitutionality of the mandate as well.

Flip side? I have the same problem with auto insurance and the semi-monopolies held by health insurance companies.

Chanus

Captain Carrot wrote:

So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.

We all know lower court cases are tried in specific places to get specific results.

Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't really see how it is constitutional, honestly. Even though I support it.

Chanus

Boring7 wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.

Though I recognize the necessity, I actually have difficulty with the constitutionality of the mandate as well.

Flip side? I have the same problem with auto insurance and the semi-monopolies held by health insurance companies.

Well, auto insurance is a requirement of the privilege of driving... it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. You can choose not to drive and it doesn't affect everyone around you. Choosing not to have health insurance eventually will affect everyone around you.

I am of the moral opinion that health insurance should not be a for-profit business, but again, that's not really a legal issue as a moral one.

I would think the constitutionality of the mandate is one of the few valid arguments the R's have for 2012 (again, I could be wrong on this and I don't agree with the opposition except that I don't see how it's constitutional).

Captain Carrot

The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.

Granted, the government's reasoning was rejected in US v. Lopez, but the argument is much stronger for the individual mandate, because it addresses insurance costs directly. Plus, it was 5-4, with Kennedy against, so there's a decent chance he'd flip.

enlightenedbum

Simple. It's a tax incentive like any other tax incentive. It's Constitutional under basically any jurisprudence from 1937 after enough of the anti-New Deal judges died to swing the court. We'll see if Kennedy feels like undermining that in the spring, I guess.

OptimusZed

Rick Perry came out against the direct election of Senators.

I think the issue is about consolidating the power in Washington, D.C. The 17th Amendment is one of those where they were making... the states were historically more in control when they decided who those senators were going to be. They took the states out of the process at that particular point in time. So that’s the... uh... the historic concept of checks and balances, when you had the concept of the federal government and the states. The 17th Amendment is when the states started getting out of balance with the federal government, is my belief.

Also this;

Newsweek: Earlier this year you told Newsweek that “when the history books are written, I think George W. Bush will go down as … an incredibly good president.”

Perry: I still think that.

This must be that savvy campaigner I've been hearing so much about.

Chanus

Ah... Is it worded as a tax incentive, though? Like, do you get a tax deduction for having insurance?

If that's the case, then it seems pretty sound.


I guess I should read more.

OptimusZed

Chanus wrote:

Ah... Is it worded as a tax incentive, though? Like, do you get a tax deduction for having insurance?

If that's the case, then it seems pretty sound.


I guess I should read more.

It's a tax hike for everyone, with the taxes going back down for anyone with health insurance.

So unless the government is mandating reproduction via the child tax credit, this isn't a mandate.

Not that I like that part of the insurance reform bill, but that's how they got around constitutionality issues.

Dr Mario Kart

The only thing you need to read from the health care bill is this:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The penalty for not paying the penalty is nothing. There is no mandate.

Chanus

OptimusZed wrote:

Chanus wrote:

Ah... Is it worded as a tax incentive, though? Like, do you get a tax deduction for having insurance?

If that's the case, then it seems pretty sound.


I guess I should read more.

It's a tax hike for everyone, with the taxes going back down for anyone with health insurance.

So unless the government is mandating reproduction via the child tax credit, this isn't a mandate.

Not that I like that part of the insurance reform bill, but that's how they got around constitutionality issues.

Well, alright then.

OptimusZed

Palin lands backhand on Perry;

"If at the end of the line he's the one left standing, I would be extremely enthused about him" on the principle of "Anybody but Obama," she said.

I believe that's our first nega-endorsement of the season.

Captain Carrot

OptimusZed wrote:

"If at the end of the line he's the one left standing, I would be extremely enthused about him" on the principle of "Anybody but Obama," she said.

That doesn't actually make any sense, if you look at it. Oh, Palin, never stop your world salad.

Void Slayer

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

The only thing you need to read from the health care bill is this:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The penalty for not paying the penalty is nothing. There is no mandate.

But they might call you up and be like, "dude, it's not fair, go buy some health insurance."

And they would be right that your kinda being a dick and taking advantage of the system.

Chanus

Captain Carrot wrote:

OptimusZed wrote:

"If at the end of the line he's the one left standing, I would be extremely enthused about him" on the principle of "Anybody but Obama," she said.

That doesn't actually make any sense, if you look at it. Oh, Palin, never stop your world salad.

You have to get really up semantics' butt to say that doesn't make sense.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to snark about the woman.

Septus

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

The only thing you need to read from the health care bill is this:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The penalty for not paying the penalty is nothing. There is no mandate.

If you don't buy insurance, what stops the Federal Government from garnishing any over taxation and deducting that off a tax rebate? If they did that, is that considered you paying a penalty?

Derrick

I'm a fairly liberal guy and I think the mandate is bullshit. Requiring people to buy private insurance rubs me the wrong way.

We already have a method for government doing things like this. It's called taxes. And I'll take the loss due to government inefficiency over the losses of having to make CEOs millionaires and pay out dividends every quarter any day of the fucking week.

Also, this is unlikely to pass SCOTUS once it gets to that level considering the bench. Well, depending on who "donated" more money "to their wives" anyway.

I'd like to see the mandate die so that something rational can rise from the ashes.

Spoiler:

Perfect enemy of the good! yadda yadda. It's more like Shit enemy of the good imo, and I'm okay with that.

Couscous

I'd like to see the mandate die so that something rational can rise from the ashes.

We have a Republican House and don't have a filibuster proof Senate so you might as well be wishing for ponies for all Americans.

Chanus

Couscous wrote:

I'd like to see the mandate die so that something rational can rise from the ashes.

We have a Republican House and don't have a filibuster proof Senate so you might as well be wishing for ponies for all Americans.

That's even more likely because then we sell everyone corn for feed.

Derrick

Couscous wrote:

I'd like to see the mandate die so that something rational can rise from the ashes.

We have a Republican House and don't have a filibuster proof Senate so you might as well be wishing for ponies for all Americans.

I don't expect anything decent out of government so long as neoconservatives have any kind of power (including *spit* filibuster).

I know it gets said a lot, but if given free choice, enough money for it, and I could convince my GF to move, I would jump ship on this fucked up country in a second.

Captain Carrot

If the mandate is thrown out, that doesn't actually mean something better will replace it.

Chanus

Captain Carrot wrote:

If the mandate is thrown out, that doesn't actually mean something better will replace it.

A realistic expectation is that it results in the whole thing being seen as a failure and scrapped entirely.

Bagginses

Void Slayer wrote:

Dr Mario Kart wrote:

The only thing you need to read from the health care bill is this:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The penalty for not paying the penalty is nothing. There is no mandate.

But they might call you up and be like, "dude, it's not fair, go buy some health insurance."

And they would be right that your kinda being a dick and taking advantage of the system.

They could send your money to the insurance penalty first, so that the money you're refusing to pay is your taxes. You would then be the IRS's bitch.

Captain Carrot

Chanus wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

If the mandate is thrown out, that doesn't actually mean something better will replace it.

A realistic expectation is that it results in the whole thing being seen as a failure and scrapped entirely.

And that will result in things sucking like they did before. Again, not a good outcome.

Chanus

Captain Carrot wrote:

Chanus wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

If the mandate is thrown out, that doesn't actually mean something better will replace it.

A realistic expectation is that it results in the whole thing being seen as a failure and scrapped entirely.

And that will result in things sucking like they did before. Again, not a good outcome.

No, I agree completely. I'm just saying: Expecting any positive result from the mandate being overturned shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how American politics works.

Derrick

Chanus wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

Chanus wrote:

Captain Carrot wrote:

If the mandate is thrown out, that doesn't actually mean something better will replace it.

A realistic expectation is that it results in the whole thing being seen as a failure and scrapped entirely.

And that will result in things sucking like they did before. Again, not a good outcome.

No, I agree completely. I'm just saying: Expecting any positive result from the mandate being overturned shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how American politics works.

American politics works? News to me.

Anyway, saying the Mandate goes down as Unconstitutional but not the whole bill, I don't have a problem with it.

What's the worse case scenario? Everything is as fucked up as it is right now?

I don't really see things getting much better under the Mandate. Trust in Corporations=Get Fucked.