Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on December 14, 2010, 10:37:04 AM
-
What an individual mandate gets you
By Ezra Klein
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/12/massrates-thumb-454x414-31029.png)
The latest insurance data (pdf) from Massachusetts is out, and it shows what a difference an individual mandate makes: About 98 percent of the state's residents have health insurance, as do 99.8 percent of the state's children. Among adults with incomes below 300 percent of the poverty line, coverage is up to 96 percent. And as you can see in the graph atop this post, those numbers have actually been getting better during the recession -- which is almost unheard of when it comes to health insurance.
For comparison, 17 percent of the country is uninsured, as are 10 percent of American children. And those numbers would of course be higher if Massachusetts wasn't dragging the average down.
(Via The Incidental Economist.)
By Ezra Klein | December 14, 2010
-
So, what Ezra is saying is that if you force everyone to buy a private sector health insurance product and punish them greatly if they don't then more people will buy health insurance?
Some real startling analysis there. Of course the "article" kinda sorta skirts everything else but whatever.
EDIT: For Clarity
-
They also have the highest costs in the nation you moron. Ezra klein - is a typical --------- 25 y/o with no real life experience giving these bogus opinions to useful idiots and dolts like Butthead who eat it up.
Unreal how stupid you liberal freaks are.
I really am warming up to the idea of a prisoner colony where we can send liberals and leftists to build their communist utopia.
-
So, what Ezra is saying is that if you force everyone to buy a private sector product and punish them greatly if they don't then more people will be insured?
Some real startling analysis there. Of course the "article" kinda sorta skirts everything else but whatever.
You use the word "force" Gigantor," yet what do the polls in MA say about the approval ratings of their health care system? Let's get some of your "startling analysis." ::)
-
You use the word "force" Gigantor," yet what do the polls in MA say about the approval ratings of their health care system? Let's get some of your "startling analysis." ::)
Funny you stupid schmuck - your sfengale Obama was deadset against mandates before he was for them.
-
Here is some analysis. If you increase the demand for a product, no matter what it is, and you fail to increase the supply of the product than you get shortages and dramatic increases in price.
To counter act the demand for the product you will have bureaucrats making decisions for the people that were forced to buy the product concerning how to use it, how much they get to use it and when they can't use it anymore.
-
Funny you stupid schmuck - your sfengale Obama was deadset against mandates before he was for them.
BUMP FOR BENNY
-
-
Funny you stupid schmuck - your sfengale Obama was deadset against mandates before he was for them.
Fuck off PEA BRAIN. The NYT classifieds await you. There may be a job cleaning the toilets at Grand Central that'll get you off of getbig for 18 hours per day. :-\
-
YOU = OWNED
-
Fuck off PEA BRAIN. The NYT classifieds await you. There may be a job cleaning the toilets at Grand Central that'll get you off of getbig for 18 hours per day. :-\
nice retort ;D
-
nice retort ;D
I actually was in Grand Central yesterday eating lunch and drinking beers for an hour after winning a huge Summary Judgment motion on a very complex construction case to which i had a huge law firm against me. I got awarded foreclosure of the premises, attorney fees, and contempt of court if the defendant does not pay me within 30 days.
As for Benny - my clips = OWNED
-
OBAMA = IDIOT/LIAR/DECEIVER IN CHIEF
-
Here is some analysis. If you increase the demand for a product, no matter what it is, and you fail to increase the supply of the product than you get shortages and dramatic increases in price.
To counter act the demand for the product you will have bureaucrats making decisions for the people that were forced to buy the product concerning how to use it, how much they get to use it and when they can't use it anymore.
This isn't an expanded "analysis" of what you previously stated, or an answer to my question. Just superfluous bullshit. ::) Since your answer was incredibly anemic and insubstantial, let me answer my own question:
JON GRUBER, economist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: It's worked very well. I think the facts are very clear. We have lowered the number of uninsured by 60 percent, from about 10 percent of the population to about 4 percent of the population. We have done so on budget. We essentially are exactly where we thought we would be when we started the program in 2006.
And we have done so in a way which is very popular with the public. It's got about a 74 percent public approval rating.
They are being "forced", yet they voted for the program and it is overwhelmingly popular. ::)
Thanks for the laughs, "Gigantor!"
-
nice retort ;D
PEA BRAIN always needs a reality check, but the fat little unemployed turd is too far gone.
-
YOU = OWNED
How so, PEA BRAIN?
-
-
I actually was in Grand Central yesterday eating lunch and drinking beers for an hour after winning a huge Summary Judgment motion on a very complex construction case to which i had a huge law firm against me. I got awarded foreclosure of the premises, attorney fees, and contempt of court if the defendant does not pay me within 30 days.
As for Benny - my clips = OWNED
Stop lying, you fat little unemployed turd.
I was in The 21 Club last night sipping cocktails with Jamie Dimon on the latest mergers and acquisitions deal our firm collaborated in with JPM. Good times. ::)
-
Benny = done
-
-
LOL@ PEA BRAIN going to ultra lesftist Cenk to try and make a point. ;D Although I like him, I don't agree with him half of the time, so I don't give a shit. I imagine Cenk advocated single-payer, or at the very least the public option, PEA BRAIN.
-
Benny = done
Obama = President
You= pathologically, disturbed fat little turd.
Of course, posting videos and making hundreds of posts per day on getbig is how most high-powered lawyers spend their time. ::) LOL What a joke.
-
BENNY = BURIED & OWED FOR GOOD
-
BENNY - CAN YOU EXPLAIN BAMA'S FLIP FLOPS ON THE MANDATE?
-
BENNY = BURIED & OWED FOR GOOD
We've gone from Gigantor and I having a discussion on MA's healthcare system to PEA BRAIN posting an endless stream of videos that don't make an argument or amount to a hill of beans. The sad, fat little masturbating turd has completely lost it. :D
-
No - you = dumbest poster on the board and in need of smackdown.
BamCare mandate = utter bullshit even he himself was against before he was for and sold out to major corps.
-
-
No - you = dumbest poster on the board and in need of smackdown.
BamCare mandate = utter bullshit even he himself was against before he was for and sold out to major corps.
Sad. :(
You DID vote for Romney in '08, PEA BRAIN. You really should hang yourself.
-
LOL @ the thoughts of the senile Ron Paul. I despise him and his family and could not give less of a shit of his opinion on RomneyCare.
The proof is always in the numbers and the approval ratings. ;)
-
He s a doctor - you re a racist welfare recipient .
-
This isn't an expanded "analysis" of what you previously stated, or an answer to my question. Just superfluous bullshit. ::) Since your answer was incredibly anemic and insubstantial, let me answer my own question:
JON GRUBER, economist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: It's worked very well. I think the facts are very clear. We have lowered the number of uninsured by 60 percent, from about 10 percent of the population to about 4 percent of the population. We have done so on budget. We essentially are exactly where we thought we would be when we started the program in 2006.
And we have done so in a way which is very popular with the public. It's got about a 74 percent public approval rating.
They are being "forced", yet they voted for the program and it is overwhelmingly popular. ::)
Thanks for the laughs, "Gigantor!"
Ok. It points out that more people are insured and people like it because they get health care. I'm not arguing that at all.
From the same "article/blog" that you found your information at:
--BETTY ANN BOWSER (Newshour): The Massachusetts law has also not solved another major problem, the shortage of primary care physicians, which got worse when more people had insurance and could afford to go to a doctor.
Every year since passage in 2006, the Massachusetts Medical Society has found the shortage to be either critical or severe. And that's affected traffic to the emergency room.--
or
--BETTY ANN BOWSER: Unlike some other parts of the country, health care reform here in Massachusetts is popular. And one of the reasons is because just about everybody who lives here has health insurance. So, while the law that passed a few years ago has been successful in getting more people into the tent, it also has created some new issues.
Perhaps the biggest one is, the law has done nothing to rein in the price tag for taking care of people. Economist Gruber says cost containment was never a goal of the Massachusetts legislation. Its focus was to get more people insured.--
or (From Reason Magazine) http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/07/health-cares-history-of-fiscal
(http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/07/health-cares-history-of-fiscal)
And then there is the Massachusetts plan, the model for ObamaCare. The state's health care program has successfully expanded coverage to about 97 percent of the state's population, but the price tag may be more than the state can bear.
When the program was signed into law, estimates indicated that the cost of its health insurance subsidies would be about $725 million per year. But by 2008, those projections had been revised. New estimates indicated that the plan was to cost $869 million in 2009 and $880 million in 2010, an upwards increase of nearly 20 percent. More recently, the governor's office announced a $294 million shortfall on health care funds, and state health insurance commissioners have warned that, on its current course, the program may be headed for bankruptcy. According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, "in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP)." The state's treasurer, a former Democrat who recently split with his party, says that the program has survived only because of federal assistance.
So there you go. Wonderful, the new law got more people insured and than it pretty much stopped there. This goes back to my original "in depth" analysis that you foolishly disregarded. The law has done nothing to stem rising costs (they are rising) or make sure there are not shortages of health care in general (the shortages are severe to critical).
-
Expand that out to 50 states and you get TRILLIONS in new debt and deficit.
-
Expand that out to 50 states and you get TRILLIONS in new debt and deficit.
And that is what the CBO report stated. Of course it was withheld until after the vote because Obama and his Admin. didn't want it "shaping the vote".
Doh!
-
Ok. It points out that more people are insured and people like it because they get health care. I'm not arguing that at all.
From the same "article/blog" that you found your information at:
--BETTY ANN BOWSER (Newshour): The Massachusetts law has also not solved another major problem, the shortage of primary care physicians, which got worse when more people had insurance and could afford to go to a doctor.
Every year since passage in 2006, the Massachusetts Medical Society has found the shortage to be either critical or severe. And that's affected traffic to the emergency room.--
or
--BETTY ANN BOWSER: Unlike some other parts of the country, health care reform here in Massachusetts is popular. And one of the reasons is because just about everybody who lives here has health insurance. So, while the law that passed a few years ago has been successful in getting more people into the tent, it also has created some new issues.
Perhaps the biggest one is, the law has done nothing to rein in the price tag for taking care of people. Economist Gruber says cost containment was never a goal of the Massachusetts legislation. Its focus was to get more people insured.--
or (From Reason Magazine) http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/07/health-cares-history-of-fiscal
(http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/07/health-cares-history-of-fiscal)
And then there is the Massachusetts plan, the model for ObamaCare. The state's health care program has successfully expanded coverage to about 97 percent of the state's population, but the price tag may be more than the state can bear.
When the program was signed into law, estimates indicated that the cost of its health insurance subsidies would be about $725 million per year. But by 2008, those projections had been revised. New estimates indicated that the plan was to cost $869 million in 2009 and $880 million in 2010, an upwards increase of nearly 20 percent. More recently, the governor's office announced a $294 million shortfall on health care funds, and state health insurance commissioners have warned that, on its current course, the program may be headed for bankruptcy. According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, "in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP)." The state's treasurer, a former Democrat who recently split with his party, says that the program has survived only because of federal assistance.
So there you go. Wonderful, the new law got more people insured and than it pretty much stopped there. This goes back to my original "in depth" analysis that you foolishly disregarded. The law has done nothing to stem rising costs (they are rising) or make sure there are not shortages of health care in general (the shortages are severe to critical).
The bottom line after all those "wonderful" words?
JON GRUBER, economist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: It's worked very well. I think the facts are very clear. We have lowered the number of uninsured by 60 percent, from about 10 percent of the population to about 4 percent of the population. We have done so on budget. We essentially are exactly where we thought we would be when we started the program in 2006.
And we have done so in a way which is very popular with the public. It's got about a 74 percent public approval rating.
----
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Unlike some other parts of the country, health care reform here in Massachusetts is popular. And one of the reasons is because just about everybody who lives here has health insurance. So, while the law that passed a few years ago has been successful in getting more people into the tent, it also has created some new issues.
Nobody said their situation was perfect, but the people of MA like it and would not go back to what was their previously. You know, like having OVER 10 PERCENT OF CHILDREN HAVING NO HEALTH INSURANCE?
Thanks for playing...now fuck off.
-
Benny = "PLEASE ANYTHING SO THAT BAMA LOOKS GOOD"
Refuses to acknowledge how uttery incomprehensible 99% of the policies this admn pursues is viewed by most people.
-
Benny is the typical far left hack - deficits don't matter, rising costs don't matter, debt does not matter, etc - so long as its percieved as a victory for the far left idiots
-
Benny = "PLEASE ANYTHING SO THAT BAMA LOOKS GOOD"
Refuses to acknowledge how uttery incomprehensible 99% of the policies this admn pursues is viewed by most people.
The word is "utterly," dummy. And the stats in question...the RomneyCare which YOU supported with your '08 vote...has a 74% approval rating. ;)
Thanks for playing.
-
-
The bottom line after all those "wonderful" words?
JON GRUBER, economist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: It's worked very well. I think the facts are very clear. We have lowered the number of uninsured by 60 percent, from about 10 percent of the population to about 4 percent of the population. We have done so on budget. We essentially are exactly where we thought we would be when we started the program in 2006.
And we have done so in a way which is very popular with the public. It's got about a 74 percent public approval rating.
----
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Unlike some other parts of the country, health care reform here in Massachusetts is popular. And one of the reasons is because just about everybody who lives here has health insurance. So, while the law that passed a few years ago has been successful in getting more people into the tent, it also has created some new issues.
Nobody said their situation was perfect, but the people of MA like it and would not go back to what was their previously. You know, like having OVER 10 PERCENT OF CHILDREN HAVING NO HEALTH INSURANCE?
Thanks for playing...now fuck off.
What was the budget? Does Gruber ever say? From the other article it states that costs are rising sharply and the state faces a fiscal reckoning and the program receives plenty of help from the federal government. My article states the numbers, Gruber doesn't. So what is "on budget"? Does he ever say? No he doesn't. Costs have skyrocketed and health care is facing sever shortages. Is that also what is in line with his projections?
Again, you are stating that 97% of people are covered and children are covered. That's great. But it costs far more than they thought, it needs lots of federal assistance and it creates shortages of doctors and general health care. Gruber even states that cost control and shrinking costs wasn't part of the plan. THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING. Costs have risen 20% and there are shortages of care now. I never argued that it was bad that people and children have coverage.
It seems that Gruber, through his own words, has admitted that the plan was to get everyone insured and than not worry about anything else like supply and availability of care or skyrocketing prices that may bankrupt the state, you know, the little things. Also, Gruber is one of Obama's point men for constructing ObamaCare so I guess we should take with a grain of salt any cost projections that come out of the Administration.
-
What an individual mandate gets you
By Ezra Klein
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/12/massrates-thumb-454x414-31029.png)
The latest insurance data (pdf) from Massachusetts is out, and it shows what a difference an individual mandate makes: About 98 percent of the state's residents have health insurance, as do 99.8 percent of the state's children. Among adults with incomes below 300 percent of the poverty line, coverage is up to 96 percent. And as you can see in the graph atop this post, those numbers have actually been getting better during the recession -- which is almost unheard of when it comes to health insurance.
For comparison, 17 percent of the country is uninsured, as are 10 percent of American children. And those numbers would of course be higher if Massachusetts wasn't dragging the average down.
(Via The Incidental Economist.)
By Ezra Klein | December 14, 2010
Lets face it: This horrible healthcare bill has done NOTHING in loosening the grip and stranglehold that private Insurance has regarding our healthcare system. It has only emboldened it and it will seek to strengthen private industry and private industry only whose goal is to make as much money as possible via human suffering.
This is not Universal Healthcare nor is it anything close to being progressive. This Healthcare Bill should in fact be a Republican wet dream and would be if it were passed when Bob Dole proposed it. (its virtually a clone of his plan).
I have never supported it and will never do so until there is Single Payer with the option to buy Private Insurance if you want extra coverage (not that you would need it under a Single Payer system, but let the option exist).
I will Never give one penny to this "Individual Mandate" ever, no matter what.
-
Without a low cost option, be it public, private, or whatever, this plan is disastrous and amounts to highway robbery for most people with zero benefit.
-
We've gone from Gigantor and I having a discussion on MA's healthcare system to PEA BRAIN posting an endless stream of videos that don't make an argument or amount to a hill of beans. The sad, fat little masturbating turd has completely lost it. :D
You are dumb. You just come up with these stupid personal attack when you can't answer the question.
Here it is again just in case your retarded self missed it:
BENNY - CAN YOU EXPLAIN BAMA'S FLIP FLOPS ON THE MANDATE?
-
I have never supported it and will never do so until there is Single Payer with the option to buy Private Insurance if you want extra coverage (not that you would need it under a Single Payer system, but let the option exist).
The loonies on this board alone should make it clear to you that it'll be at least 50 years, if ever, before this country has a single payer health care system. You far lefties can bitch and moan all you want...you have the individual mandate or the disaster we have had up till now.
-
The loonies on this board alone should make it clear to you that it'll be at least 50 years, if ever, before this country has a single payer health care system. You far lefties can bitch and moan all you want...you have the individual mandate or the disaster we have had up till now.
Mandate is FAR FAR worse than what we had before.
What else should the Fed Gov be able to force you to purchase from private corps?
-
The loonies on this board alone should make it clear to you that it'll be at least 50 years, if ever, before this country has a single payer health care system. You far lefties can bitch and moan all you want...you have the individual mandate or the disaster we have had up till now.
There is no real difference in what was passed to what we have now. Pre-Existing condition elimination is a good thing, however this is not stopping the Private Insurance companies one bit from raising premiums and having extra "membership" charges as well as raising reasonable and customary rates.
You see, the bottom line is that the Private Insurance companies MUST turn a profit each year and how do you think they do this: 1. By adding more people to their rolls and 2. Raising rates and charging extra fees. They don`t care one bit about the Pre-Existing elimination as it is quite simple for them to get around.
Question to you Benny,
Why do you want to shill for the Large Private Insurance Industry, especially when their only goal is to make as much money as possible from human suffering? What do you get out of it and what does your family get out of it?
I don`t see how you could be bent to that persuasion so easily.
-
What was the budget? Does Gruber ever say? From the other article it states that costs are rising sharply and the state faces a fiscal reckoning and the program receives plenty of help from the federal government. My article states the numbers, Gruber doesn't. So what is "on budget"? Does he ever say? No he doesn't. Costs have skyrocketed and health care is facing sever shortages. Is that also what is in line with his projections?
Again, you are stating that 97% of people are covered and children are covered. That's great. But it costs far more than they thought, it needs lots of federal assistance and it creates shortages of doctors and general health care. Gruber even states that cost control and shrinking costs wasn't part of the plan. THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING. Costs have risen 20% and there are shortages of care now. I never argued that it was bad that people and children have coverage.
It seems that Gruber, through his own words, has admitted that the plan was to get everyone insured and than not worry about anything else like supply and availability of care or skyrocketing prices that may bankrupt the state, you know, the little things. Also, Gruber is one of Obama's point men for constructing ObamaCare so I guess we should take with a grain of salt any cost projections that come out of the Administration.
Were the costs of people's insurance premiums going up annually PRIOR to RomneyCare? And if so, what is the alternative solution you were supporting?
You keep merging the so-called "ObamaCare" with RomneyCare. If Gruber was Obama's "point man" for Health Care Reform, show me another person providing poll numbers showing the people of MA are unhappy with the health care plan? Why do 74% of the people support such a "disastrous" state plan that's creating "doctor shortages" and "shortages of health care?" What are the exact numbers of the fiscal shortages you claim are destroying the MA budget? And how does this jibe with the Health Reform Act that the CBO has stated is deficit neutral?
Will you vote for Romney in '12 should he be the Repubes nominee, as PEA BRAIN did in '08?
-
Were the costs of people's insurance premiums going up annually PRIOR to RomneyCare? And if so, what is the alternative solution you were supporting?
You keep merging the so-called "ObamaCare" with RomneyCare. If Gruber was Obama's "point man" for Health Care Reform, show me another person providing poll numbers showing the people of MA are unhappy with the health care plan? Why do 74% of the people support such a "disastrous" state plan that's creating "doctor shortages" and "shortages of health care?" What are the exact numbers of the fiscal shortages you claim are destroying the MA budget? And how does this jibe with the Health Reform Act that the CBO has stated is deficit neutral?
Will you vote for Romney in '12 should he be the Repubes nominee, as PEA BRAIN did in '08?
I will dig around and see if I can get any solid numbers as it's only fair. But on your end can you produce any numbers concerning the budget, cost projections etc? That would provide some clarity on the issue.
And again, I'm not arguing poll numbers, no where in my arguements did I say people didn't like it. There is a difference between the poll numbers and what is really happening beneath the surface concerning availiability, cost, shortages etc. People love S.S. and Medicare/Medicaid but those programs will go bust and put much undue strain if not bankruptcy on the U.S., but as for now people love them because it's "free".
As Adonis stated, this plan and Obamacare are jokes and huge givebacks to private insurance companies. It's a fucking goldmine for them. They don't have to worry about anything now.
For Adonis, I see what you're saying but explain to me what you think should be covered under a basic single payer system. Would it be just the basics for a basic premium and if you want additional access and coverage you can buy private stuff to round everything out?
-
I'm sure Benny is an expert on "man-dates..."
-
BUMP
Was obama lying his fat lips and ears off during the primary or is he lying now?
-
Striking down mandate would be 'devastating'
By Jason Millman - 12/14/10 08:31 AM ET
www.thehill.com
________________________ ___________________
A day after a Virginia judge struck down the healthcare reform law's individual mandate, Obama administration officials warned in a Tuesday op-ed that there would be "devastating consequences for everyone with health insurance" if the ruling is upheld.
"Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn't work," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the reform law's requirement that everyone purchase insurance by 2014 is unconstitutional because Congress can't regulate an individual's failure to purchase health insurance under the pretense that it is an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. The Obama administration has argued that choosing not to purchase health insurance is an economic activity, because everyone will need healthcare at some point in his or her life.
Sebelius and Holder pointed to federal judges in Virginia and Michigan who had already upheld the individual mandate before Monday's ruling. Those judges wrote that failure to purchase health insurance has a negative impact on the rest of the insurance market because the cost of uncompensated care is passed on to care providers, businesses and individuals with insurance.
"As two federal courts have already held, this unfair cost-shifting harms the marketplace," Sebelius and Holder wrote. "For decades, Supreme Court decisions have made clear that the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with such harmful economic effects, which is what the law does — it regulates how we pay for health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't continue to pay for those who don't."
A federal court in Florida will hear oral arguments Thursday on a 20-state lawsuit that also challenges the individual mandate. Both the Florida lawsuit and latest Virginia ruling are expected to wind up before the Supreme Court.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________
The day this whole mess goes away will be the first day the economy can make a come back.
-
The loonies on this board alone should make it clear to you that it'll be at least 50 years, if ever, before this country has a single payer health care system. You far lefties can bitch and moan all you want...you have the individual mandate or the disaster we have had up till now.
You are dumb. You just come up with these stupid personal attack when you can't answer the question.
Here it is again just in case your retarded self missed it:
BENNY - CAN YOU EXPLAIN BAMA'S FLIP FLOPS ON THE MANDATE?
-
You are dumb. You just come up with these stupid personal attack when you can't answer the question.
Here it is again just in case your retarded self missed it:
BENNY - CAN YOU EXPLAIN BAMA'S FLIP FLOPS ON THE MANDATE?
An Unhealthy Mandate
Townhall.com ^ | December 16, 2010 | Steve Chapman
During her confirmation hearings last summer, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked if the Constitution empowers the federal government to pass a law requiring Americans to eat fruits and vegetables.
What did she say in response? She said, "It sounds like a dumb law." She said the commerce clause of the Constitution "has been interpreted broadly." She said the courts have a duty to ensure that "Congress doesn't go further than the Constitution says it can go, doesn't violate individual rights, and also doesn't act outside its enumerated authorities."
This is what she did not say: "No."
This week, however, a federal judge said it. The case wasn't about fruits and vegetables; it was about the federal health insurance law passed this year. But his conclusion was exactly the one Kagan evaded: There are some things the federal government may not make us do. It may not make us purchase medical insurance -- as the new law does -- and by implication, it may not make us eat broccoli.
When the individual mandate to buy coverage was challenged in court, the Obama administration argued, essentially, three things: 1) The Constitution gives the government the authority to regulate interstate commerce, 2) everything people do and don't do affects interstate commerce, and therefore 3) the government may regulate everything and everyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
-
Judge in Florida hears challenge to health care law
From Dugald McConnell and Brian Todd, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Challenge comes on the heels of a Virginia judge's ruling against the Affordable Care Act
Lawyers for 20 states' attorneys general argue against the law
In the Virginia case, a judge ruled the mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional
In the Florida case, plaintiffs are targeting the requirement for states to expand Medicare
Sarasota, Florida (CNN) -- Opponents of this year's sweeping health care law challenged its validity in a Florida courtroom Thursday, pressing ahead on a second front with their campaign to reverse it.
Just days after a Virginia judge found unconstitutional a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, a judge in Florida heard another challenge to the law, from lawyers representing the attorneys general of 20 states.
In the Virginia case, the judge struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014, saying the Constitution does not give the government the authority to order individuals to buy something if they didn't want to. In the Florida case, opponents are targeting not only that individual mandate, but also the law's requirement that each state expand Medicaid to cover more of the low-income uninsured.
"It's an enormous burden on the states, that they never agreed to," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said outside the Pensacola courthouse. The Medicaid expansion, he said, amounts to "the compulsion and coercion of the states, in violation of the 10th Amendment."
Defending the law for the Justice Department, Ian Gershengorn argued that the expansion is no different from previous expansions of Medicaid coverage, which withstood court challenge.
Under the law, the federal government is supposed to pay states for most of the cost of the Medicaid expansion -- an estimated 95 percent over the first five years, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott estimated the expansion could cost his state up to $25 billion over 10 years.
On the issue of requiring the uninsured to buy health insurance, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson seemed receptive to questions about its fairness. "There are lots of alternatives to that," he said, "without imposing on liberties or freedom of choice."
"There are some people who have a different way of dealing with a situation, and that is being taken away from them," he said.
Vinson then asked whether the government also had the power to require individuals to purchase broccoli, because it could improve health and lower medical costs overall.
"If you go by the tenor of the questions he asked, you'd have to think that he would strike down the [individual] mandate, and uphold the Medicaid requirements," said Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law, who supports the challenges to the law. "But I don't know that you can really fairly judge what a judge is going to do based on the questions he asks in court."
Judge Vinson did not say when he would rule on the government's motion seeking dismissal of the case.
The attorneys general of twenty states have joined the challenge: Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Georgia, and Alaska.
After the hearing, Attorney General Abbott told reporters, "there are millions of people in their twenties who don't need access to health care," and they shouldn't be forced to buy coverage they don't want. "It is liberty and freedom which is being fought for in this courtroom today," he said to the applause of supporters.
But in an interview Monday with CNN affiliate WLFA, President Obama said the requirement is justified for the overall good.
"All we've said is, everybody has to get some basic insurance, so that we're not paying for you when you get sick," he said. "It's the right thing to do, and I'm confident that the courts will uphold it."
Legal experts expect challenges to the health care law to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, though that could take at least a year or two.
The mandate on individuals to buy insurance is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014. But if that portion of the law is struck down, analysts say it would make it difficult to pay for the law's other, more popular provisions.
In the meantime, the public will already benefit from several other provisions of the law, according to White House health care policy director Nancy-Anne DeParle. Those include requirements that insurers offer coverage to children of beneficiaries until age 26; not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions; and not place a lifetime cap on benefits.
CNN's Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/16/florida.health.care.challenge
________________________ __________________
Good, looks likethis judge too will strike down this disaster.
-
On the issue of requiring the uninsured to buy health insurance, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson seemed receptive to questions about its fairness. "There are lots of alternatives to that," he said, "without imposing on liberties or freedom of choice."
"There are some people who have a different way of dealing with a situation, and that is being taken away from them," he said.
Vinson then asked whether the government also had the power to require individuals to purchase broccoli, because it could improve health and lower medical costs overall.
"If you go by the tenor of the questions he asked, you'd have to think that he would strike down the [individual] mandate, and uphold the Medicaid requirements," said Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law, who supports the challenges to the law. "But I don't know that you can really fairly judge what a judge is going to do based on the questions he asks in court."
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____
Why is this basic issue so hard for you leftists to grasp?