Obamacare just committed suicide before the SCOTUS

Essentially, Tenny, if the government is found to be relying on the Commerce clause for the individual mandate, they're [uck fay]ed. However, if they can convince the Court that it's simply just a tax, that's an enumerated power under the Constitution; thus, it would be permissible. What's equally interesting is that I don't believe I've heard the President claim that the mandate is a tax; in fact, I think he's said the exact opposite; however, in front of the Supreme Court, that is the government's argument.

 

how can a tax save us billions as obama has suggested?

 

I'm not agreeing with him, so don't take it that way, but what's being said is that the entire regulatory scheme would save us billions. What the government is saying is the tax is only the individual mandate part of the larger regulatory scheme.

 

The suggested treatment my doctor prescribed me was 3 injections/week- 12 per month. The cost for the meds was $3,800/month. TWELVE shot that costs nearly $4 Gs. My insurance denied the claim. A different, less effective drug had to be substituted because their was no way I could afford that every month. That's more than I make in a month. Medical decisions ARE effected/made by the ability to pay- quality, length, and type of treatment are all effected. I've lived it. Luckily, my situation is not to the point of life and death. Others aren't so fortunate. I know this is the third time I've said it, but that is deciding who lives and dies based on the ability to pay which is by default a Death Panel.

Liking money is fine if it works for you. It certainly can make some aspects of life easier, but it can complicate others. As I said earlier, I wasn't knocking you for that. I like money, too. It just isn't the driving force in my life. It is further down on my priority list.

 

Ive had the pleasure of meeting both he and his wife - she's a GOP strategist, btw - genuinely nice guy, loves LSU. I don't know how best to classiy his intelligence (strategic? Intuitive?) but the guy was up there, and fluidly commanded facts and figures as well as anyone I've ever met.

What else is he going to say, really? This is spin, spin, spin. Nothing more.

If this gets rejected, it will be an unmitigated disaster for President Obama, no two ways about it. It will have thrown out his single biggest domestic "accomplishment" that required he lend his personal weight, and that of his office, in order to make it happen.

Barring someone clones either Reagan or Bin Laden before the general election, I couldn't think of a more damaging event, and so close to the election.

 

health insurance companies pay in instances of life and death. why? because it saves them money. it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay $4k for medication than it is to pay for 4 weeks of hospital stays when someone is dying. i can't speak for your specific situation and my mother had something similar where the insurance woudln't pay for the better procedure (her neck wouldn't have had full motion) and she paid the difference, but once again not a life and death decision. a quality of life decision. and many non healthcare quality of life decisions end up in financial ruin for people. that isn't to say i think that's fair, just that S happens.

money isn't the driving force in my life. i assure you i could make a shitload more money than i currently make if i chose to never see my family and work 80 hours a week. more money has yet to have caused me any problems though.

 

Because we are already on the hook through the insurance and medical industry passing this expense on to us as medical consumerswhether this "tax" or whatever one wants to call it passes inspection or not, so if the system is accounting for these expenses and meeting them earlier it reduces the cost.

I am not trying to convince you the plan is a good one, but the fact that we already pay for this stuff either way is getting lost in the rhetoric.

 

all else equal yes, but that ignores that people with health insurance on average consumer far more than those without. therefore i see no way handing millions of people health insurance that didn't have it before could possibly save money. i.e. we are paying for it currently, but not as much as we would under universal. that and the moral hazard problem of people waiting till they are sick to get health insurance with this available. hell i bet you it is what i would have done before i got married. i would have paid the penalty and pocketed the difference. why not?

 

Maybe I will hit this $400 mil lottery and I can feel what it's like. I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning during the predicted storms this evening. Either way, one solves several problems while the other solves all my problems. One thing's for sure, I win the lottery and a bunch of folks would be told where they could go. I might even continue working just to cause mass chaos.

 

What about a federal universal system that could be opted in or out of at a state level? Would that be acceptable to conservatives? It would only work if a large amount of states wanted in due to desperate folks flocking to leech on to the system if only a few states did it.

 

I've semi considered this option. Once again, it goes back to the cost, and quite frankly I've not mulled over it enough to know if it is worth it or not.

I'm also trying to figure out how this is any different at its root than the debacle that is Tenncare.

 

In an election year, nothing would pass.

 

well i'm certainly not at lottery level wealth, but i'm willing to take the chance it might ruin my life.

i want no part of it from a fiscal point of view. but i can't speak for others.

 

Money also determines your access to food and shelter. I wouldn't call Kroger or Century 21 death panels.

 

And we have govt agencies that address these issues, no?

 

I might take 5 or 6 chances.....

 

yes and sometimes deserving people fall through the cracks there as well. people who argue in favor of obamacare (not talking about you jay) seem to be under the impression medicaid doesn't exist.

 

Yes. And it has been managed very badly, doesn't really help many improve their situations, and always costs way more than expected.

 

If their situation would otherwise be starvation, I'd say it has been "massively" improved!

 

I mean that rather than learning how to fish they are just getting fish. Save them from starving but if at any point the aid was taken away they'd be in the exact same situation.

Why is massively in quotations?