Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The White House Strikes Back On The Affordable Care Act Ruling

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 08:32 AM
Original message
The White House Strikes Back On The Affordable Care Act Ruling
Mods, I didn't truncate this because I imagine the WH wants us to know what they're doing.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/31/judicial-activism-and-affordable-care-act

The White House Blog
Judicial Activism and the Affordable Care Act
Posted by Stephanie Cutter on January 31, 2011 at 04:49 PM EST


Today, a judge in Florida issued a decision in a case filed by 25 Republican Attorneys General and Governors striking down the Affordable Care Act. This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion. Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law. In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law.

Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain. And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk.

Under today’s view of the law, seniors will pay higher prices for their prescription drugs and small businesses will pay higher taxes because small business tax credits would be eliminated. And the new provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying, capping or limiting your care would be wiped away.

We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.

History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act -- were all filed and all failed. And contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.

Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong.
Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. As Congress found, every year millions of people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, shifting tens of billions of dollars in added cost onto those who have insurance and onto taxpayers. There can be no doubt that this activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and Congress has the power to regulate it.

The Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone, if they can afford it, to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for. For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, their insurance premiums will decrease over time. Many of those who are currently struggling to pay for insurance will get a new tax credit. Only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it. Because most people would voluntarily purchase coverage as it becomes more affordable and the policy exempts those for whom purchase would cause a financial hardship, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016.

The Affordable Care Act also bans insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Here’s why: If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance – especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover – then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can’t say no. That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care spending nationwide.

We don’t let people wait until after they’ve been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don’t want to do that with healthcare. If we’re going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance.

Two federal courts and more than 100 constitutional scholars agree with these arguments. And representatives from important organizations like the American Cancer Society Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Nurses Association have all filed amicus briefs in similar cases supporting the Administration’s position. Event President Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried has written, “the health care law’s enemies have no ally in the Constitution.”


In the end, we’re confident our arguments will carry the day and the health reform law will continue to make the health care system stronger for all of us.

Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Advisor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Cost Shifting" - thats a nice way to say I'm paying for the Free-Loaders
clogging up our emergency rooms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sorry, but the Democrats deserve this. This HCR bill could, and should, be so much better.
They are weak and scared. They compromise at every turn, and get kicked in the mouth for their efforts.

HCR should have included Medicare for everyone over 55 and the the Public Option. It should have started with single payer. At a minimum we should have at least gotten a trigger. Instead, we get a crappy bill that the Republicans will eventually overturn.

It's a sad time for America, and the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deserved what? A
teabagger judge or two playing politics with people's lives?

Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law

The New Republic: The Poorly Argued Florida Ruling

After that, read Alan Grayson's opinion on the law


As Steve Benen pointed out:

<...>

Indeed, overall, about a dozen federal courts have dismissed challenges to the health care law.

In other words, when you hear on the news that "courts" have a problem with the Affordable Care Act, remember that it's actually a minority of the judges who've heard cases related to the law.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nice try.
I want this bill to succeed, and I think this judge is a fuckin moron, but that has nothing to do with what I said in my post.

The Democrats deserve it because they wouldn't have to deal with shit if they had a backbone and passed real healthcare reform. But I think you already know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. "I want this bill to succeed, and I think this judge is a fuckin moron"
Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 09:14 AM by ProSense
So what do you think Democrats deserved?

"The Democrats deserve it because they wouldn't have to deal with shit if they had a backbone and passed real healthcare reform. But I think you already know that."

That's simply wishful thinking. Republicans would have challenged anything that passed.

They don't want reform and don't support any new social programs.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Wrong again. I'm not happy about this at all.
Just disappointed that the Democrats made it so easy for them. It didn't have to be this way.

And, arguing that a mandate by the federal government is unconstitutional is much easier when there is no precedent for it. Fighting medicare for all, or at least for those over 55, would have been almost impossible - same with the public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. "And, arguing that a mandate by the federal government is unconstitutional is much easier
...when there is no precedent for it."

There is a precedent, it's called CHIP.

Childrens's health care is mandated. Is that unconstitutional?

Republicans are idiots, and they have everyone following behind them with this idiotic argument.

When Bush vetoed the Children's health care bill, Republicans governors around the country were outraged. Suddenly a mandate is unconstitutional?

BS political posturing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Not the same.
The CHIP program is paid for by taxpayer money and administered by the states. It's not a mandate to buy private insurance.

BS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. It's still a mandate and
states are required to comply. The Federal government provides matching funds.

Why didn't states declare SCHIP unconstitutional?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
61. Its not the same PPACA has a mandate that we have to buy something called insurance
SCHIP has no such mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. I hear you, Dawg...and agree.
Once again, The Democratic Party Leadership is fumbling the ball....they are losing the marketing war.

There have been a handful of Americans who HAVE been helped by the HCR.
Some in the Upper Middle Class with pre-existing conditions who can afford the price ($600 - $900/month) HAVE been able to BUY Health Insurance. Some in the Upper Middle Class who can afford the price HAVE been able to pick up their young adult children on their policies.
SOME have been helped.

The Democratic Party SHOULD be marching these people across the National Stage testifying how they have been helped,
and that the Republicans have just voted as a Party to throw them back into the cold.
THIS is basic marketing.....and the Democratic Party Leadership is dropping the ball in a nauseating effort to appease those who will never be appeased.

Can you imagine IF the Democrats had extended the eligibility for Medicare to 55?
There would be NO turning back.
It really looks like our leadership WANTS to lose. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. Dawgs you are absolutely right...
This HCR bill should have included public option and no mandates.
Even Obama opposed mandates during the campaign. Hillary favored them
and I remember Obama was against mandates during the debates. With solid
majorities in House & Senate, lets face it our side caved to the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
43. You think outlawing private insurance or forcing people to become part of a single payer plan
wouldnt have been just as easy to pick on?

Yeah, nice one you are trying to sell us there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. I'm not for outlawing private insurance.
And forcing people to become part of a single payer plan would be the same as social security.

There is still no precedent for the federal government forcing individuals to buy something from a private company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. The reform is real enough to the people it helps.
Want to see all the testimonials or would you rather lament the public option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Good enough should not be our benchmark.
There is almost nothing in this HCR bill that will control healthcare costs; arguably the second biggest problem with healthcare in America. How is going to be real enough when no one can afford it, and businesses are forced to cut staff when they can't provide it?

Don't need to see testimonials. I've already said that I like what's in the bill. It just doesn't go far enough - not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
65. Testimonials are useless when most people are being gouged into financial oblivion
--by insurance companies. If 100 people are drowning and a lifeboat comes by for 10 of them, what do you expect the 90 left behind to do? Stand up and cheer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. "they" .... are you not one of us? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I stopped being a member of the Democratic party when the Democrats caved on tax cuts for the rich.
Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 10:26 AM by Dawgs
I support what they believe in, but I can't support a party that refuses to fight for something so important.

I consider myself a democratic socialist; like Bernie Sanders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. And that's what the President needs...
.... more quitters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. What about what the American people need?
Do they get anything?

And I haven't quit on anyone or anything. I still support Obama and the Democrats. I'm just not going to go along blindly just because they are Democrats.

And what about President Obama and the Democrats? When are they going to start acting like Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Obama (and elected Dems) R supposed 2 B working 4 US, not vice versa
Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 12:42 PM by Mimosa
It was the Democrats in the Senate (and maybe even the Prez) who did not want healthcare for all.

How about all the couples who get divorced so the sick person can get Medicaid? That shouldn't be happening but it is! People who aren't poor enough for Medicaid can go bankrupt and lose their homes if they get sick and can't afford insurance or if there insurance is high deductible with insufficient coverage.

NOTHING really got fixed. Except the rich always do just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. The American people need to quit expecting the President to do it alone.
Just because that's what we saw Bush do doesn't mean that's what we should EXPECT Obama to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. How about he start by trying to do what he promised.
He caved on the public option when he had the votes, and he didn't even try to fight to end the tax cuts for the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. He NEVER had 60 votes for the public option in the Senate, NEVER. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. How many times does this need to be said around here?
HCR passed through reconciliation; which only needed 50 votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #44
60. The public option didn't need 50, it needed 5...
.... the five Democratic votes it did NOT get, the five Democratic votes that killed it in the Finance committee Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, and Tom Carper. You cant make it onto the floor for a vote if you cant even make it out of committee. And that's not even counting the Dems in the House who were not willing to support it.

I know, I know. This whole problem would have been solved if Obama had simply made more speeches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rury Donating Member (629 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. President Obama NEVER had the votes for the public option and the Conervadems
in the Senate were going to buck him on tax cuts for the rich.
So I call bullshit on your post.
Congressional Democrats need to work WITH HIM!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Proof that he didn't have 50 votes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/the-public-options-last-s_n_495383.html

And don't even fucking start on his unwillingness to even fight to end the tax cuts for the rich. He caved as soon as the Republicans pushed him, just like a bully taking his lunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. You keep saying that, but never back it up
The battle wasn't that long ago. If we had the votes, why didn't it pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. I have backed it up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/the-public-options-last-s_n_495383.html

Your turn? Where is the proof they didn't have 50 votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Right here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

Please read it. Then read it again. You'll start to understand how government works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. A reconciliation bill isn’t subject to the cloture rule.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. According to Pelosi, the votes weren't there
"We had it, we wanted it ... it's not in the reconciliation," Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing. "It isn't in there because have the votes to have it in there."

Momentum had been building to reintroduce the government-run plan. Over 40 senators have endorsed a letter sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) that called for senators to pass the public option using the budget reconciliation process.

But the number of senators who backed the plan falls short of the 50 needed to pass the package, assuming Vice President Joe Biden votes to break a tie.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/86447-pelosi-public-option-will-not-be-in-health-bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. The article I posted shows that they could have gotten them if Pelosi/Obama/Reid pushed it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/the-public-options-last-s_n_495383.html

Still haven't seen any proof that they didn't have them - more like caving to make sure they passed something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Your article was posted a day before Nancy's response
The thought they had the votes. The votes weren't there. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Still not proof that they couldn't have gotten them.
Looks like Pelosi, Obama, and Reid agreed to not shake things up and just get the thing passed.

I will believe this until someone can show me actual quotes from Senators that were going to vote no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. You have zero proof they didn't try
Funny thing is I don't have to prove anything to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Like pulling teeth...
Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 04:53 PM by butterfly77
why in the hell did Durbin need to round up votes if they were really Democrats they would have had the Presidents'back anyway. CONS stick together no matter what because they really don't give a damn what the American people want.

Two years wasted with bullshit games because many who are in the Democratic party really are working for the other party. Did you see all of the switching of parties after the election..

See:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4718231
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. Repeal is "judicial overreaching," but forced purchase of a product from a private company isn't?
So when the Florida court attempts to protect consumers for predator insurance companies by striking down a mandate that FORCES those consumers to buy from the insurance companies, that's judicial overreaching.

But when the SC reverses that decision in a few months, that will be good law?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. So the Republicans repealing it was good for the country: returning to the status quo?
Call Harry Reid and tell him Mitch is right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. They passed a shitty law. So yes, it gets repealed, and rightly so.
We can fix health care without delivering ourselves into the hands of the insurance companies and possibly violating the constitution. Or do you disagree?

Sounds like for you, the ends justify the "means" in this case. And that's scary as SHIT if indeed even DU'ers are starting to think this way when it comes to politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. It's not a "shitty law"
and repealing it is callous and moronic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. The aspect that got struck down, Mandates, was a policy that
candidate Obama claimed in no uncertain terms to oppose. Clinton was pro-mandate, Obama was against them, specifically, constantly, in all forms of media and in the debates as well. Had he stuck to what he promised, there would not be that aspect to strike down at all. He was against individual mandates, and for a public option. As candidate, he was correct.
Just interesting stuff. I supported his previous positions enough to vote for him. His current positions would not motivate me to cross the street to nod yes. When you pull a 180 that is how it is going to be. No mandates, I mean mandates! Public Option! No, I mean no public option...I have principles, pro. That means when the President switches sides, I do not go with him. He was right, now he is wrong. Typical of faith based and brittle minds, he is unable to recognize that we are all equal, unable to understand why those who cheered his 'yes' will not also cheer his 'no'.
Now post a silly question in response. But he was very right, before he was so wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Except no one is being forced to buy anything at all.
If you don't have health insurance and you are at a high enough income level, then you pay a surtax. The only thing you are being forced to do is to contribute to your emergency room fund, which makes sense because hospitals are pretty much forced to deliver emergency care that someone has to ultimately pay for, whether you get health insurance or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. This will be the ONLY nation on Earth to mandate the purchase
of for profit products of any kind. In other nations where there is a mandate to purchase health insurance, it is also a crime to profit from the providing of those mandated products. Remove that profit, and there is some argument to be made for mandates, as long as the rest of the laws treat all families equally. Ours do not. The 'subsidies' will fuck us under, as we are treated as either strangers or a household, but never as a family. We can not file jointly, thus subsidies under this law will be unfair to millions of families that the religious dogma fans claim are not really families.
Remove the profit, remove the discrimination, and we can talk about how they do it in the Netherlands. As it stands, this is mostly money for Companies, not health care for citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. it's the classic case of swallowing a camel and choking on a fly isn't it?
"Dont MAKE me buy affordable health insurance! I want to continue to over-pay for the emergency room visits of those who dont have any!" .... or WORSE, actually be the one contributing to the problem by being able to afford health insurance and simply not having it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Why should I continue to pay twice as much for the poor to have health care?
Why would I oppose such a progressive piece of legislation? Sorry, I'm a Democrat, not a libertarian. I cant, in good faith, worry about only my individual "rights" over the welfare of everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. What's this, class war?
Why couldn't the US have health insurance coverage for all which is not work connected? Other countries can do it! France, Germany, the UK, Canada...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. because other countries do not have a United States Senate nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Their political parties and parliaments aren't as chummy with corporations
We all know our politicians are bought. Some less than others, but they will do what the moneyed interests command.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #25
62. Twice as much?
At most, uncompensated care would be adding about 5% to your bill and 2/3rds of uncompensated care is actually from people who have insurance.

What a bunch of weird hyperbole in this thread.

The uninsured are not the cause of high health care costs. They probably keep costs down overall because they use the system less. This bill does nothing to address the actual causes of high costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Why do you think repeating "only nation on earth" over and over contributes to your argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. What part of this insurance is going to be affordable?? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #20
66. Affordable = a really shitty product that doesn't cover much, and that
--you can't afford to use because of the deductibles. A subsidized shitty product is still a shitty product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
49. Judicial overreaching applies to judges
Congress and the President have no judicial powers, thus they can't engage in "judicial" overreaching.

Judicial overreaching refers to judges invalidating laws without enough strength of law behind it, merely because they want to, aka "legislating from the bench." The bench doesn't legislate. Congress does (with some contribution by the President).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
18. and anything released on the WH website is public domain ...
.... not subject to copyright. :fistbump:

thanks for sharing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
27. Headline should read "The White House Flails Impotently At The Affordable Care Act Ruling"
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Why?
Do you know of anything else they can do besides take it to the SCOTUS? Would posturing make you happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. What the Murdoch-ruled media doesn't tell us...
is that for the two district court rulings against the health care law, there have been 14 district court rulings upholding the law.

Now it's getting kicked to the appeals courts, who'll likely shoot down those conservative judicial activists...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. Yes, but what will the five conservative judicial activists on the Supreme Court say about it?
That is the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
47. But will the conservative majority on the Supreme Court agree with the White House on this?
It will come down to the Supreme Court. Whatever you or I say about it now won't really matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobbyBoring Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
55. One thing I don't get
Rethugs and cons are always railing about "Personal Responsibility. Since we have a system where health insurance is pretty much required, wouldn't the "Personally Responsible" thing to do be buy health insurance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #55
63. I guess it depends on whether or not you think giving your money to crooks..
is responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
64. Kick. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC