I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Medigal: remember that laws are not retroactive unless specifically made so, so the health care law must be argued about in court according to how things exist in the present day - or, more precisely, as they exist at the time that the law's provisions --or those which the supreme court decides to consider-- take effect.Babies born today are virtually all in the healthcare system. The exceptions confirm the rule.

And as a sort of aside to all of us, it's worth remembering that the supreme court can decide which parts of a ruling and therefore of a law to consider. So even if a federal judge has ruled the entire law unconstitutional and the case is appealed to the supreme court, the path is far from clear. Roberts and co. have the option of either refusing to hear the case (denying cert.) or accepting parts of it for review. The court could even decide to consider the entire ruling about the entire law but issue a decision that breaks it out into parts; that goes something like this (let's assign colors to parts): this red part of the ruling is wrong, but the clause it ruled on is unconstitutional for different reasons so congress has to change this. This blue part stands so the lower court's decision is voided on that aspect. This green part we remand. This orange part is ok. If anyone in this country has the power of a line-item veto of sorts, it is the supreme court. 

Or it could rule yes or no to the whole law. I don't see Roberts doing that - he is too intellectually sophisticated and his is someone who likes very narrow, precise rulings and has argued for such an approach since joining the court. His preference is for consensus votes, even though the court appears more divided now than ever. His is only one vote, but he has the power, as chief justice, to redirect the conversations behind closed doors that will forestall this black-and-white yes-or-no option. I certainly don't see the "liberal" wing agreeing to an all up or down vote, if you will. Scalia and Thomas would. I don't know Alito's thinking well enough. I can see Elena Kagan, as an academic, really parsing out the bits and pieces of this.

I speculate that high court rulings will not settle the question and may create even more uncertainty. As a country, we have grown too accustomed to looking to the courts to make policy decisions but I think we will be disappointed if we are hoping that the issue ends with the high court.

As I said before, in their haste to get something passed, the lawyers forgot to include the standard clause that allows the law to be separated into parts by the courts. 

Maybe if some of those lawmakers had bothered to READ the bill BEFORE they voted for it, one of the legal minds might have noticed the omission and corrected the situation. 

And when I talk about the money spent on this bill, I include government money, and the money that all the various lobbying groups spent, and the money spent by the insurance industry, and on and on. 

If the POTUS instead of deciding that he knew better than anyone else, and shoving this bill that nobody likes (some provisions of it yes, but nobody is happy with this mistake) down the throats of the American people and instead showed leadership and called on all Americans for suggestions on how to make affordable health care available to every American who needs it in a timely manner, we would be much further ahead in that quest. 

Nobody NEEDS health insurance.  Everybody needs to have health care available to them, and insurance is just one method of paying for that care.

Jon Stewart for president - after Obama in the next term of course!

PatMom,

Can you give a source for your statement that the bill does not contain the standard language that if one part is unconstitutional the rest still stands?

I speculated that the recent decision indicated that it might not be there or that the judge had other grounds for declaring the whole thing unconstitutional but I have not found any proof of this.

I will bump the thread on what is actually in the bill and timing for implementation.  Perhaps you can review the thread and link and tell us all what you specifically object to.  Here is a link to the thread.  Please do not post on that thread.  It's for informational purposes only. 

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/113/topic/758616?page=1#idx_17

Are you and PatMom in favor of a single payer plan?  If so, I totally agree. 

All  Federal employees are on a single payer system and can choose their doctors or HMO's.  Congress is on this plan and so was I when I was a Federal employee.  My husband had a heart attack with a bill of $87,000 and we paid $250 out of pocket.  Even the ambulance was covered.  The Federal employee plan also includes full dental and vision care.  It's great. 

Notself .. I am in favor of a single payer system.  The feds have a great insurance policy .. wish we all did.

Bren

Well, all I can say is at the rate the government is growing, we'll all be working for them soon. They have cadillac health care AND the average salary for a federal goverment employee as of June 2010 was  $73,770. Sweet. I could go for that.

Barbara .. I copied a couple of paragraphs towards the end of your link.  They are the judge's discussion and decision.  I read the first few pages of the pleading then skipped to the end where the judge made his ruling.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceededthe bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That isnot to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems andinequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixthof the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform andregulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal disputehas been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. 30 Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, theentire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and Iam aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there isvirtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, itis hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act."

Patmom .. interesting article.

Judge Vinson exposed many of those flaws of that process in his ruling - most notably the lack of a severability clause, which existed in some other versions, but not in the Senate‘s final bill. Severability would have allowed some parts of the law to remain in place even if the individual mandate fell.

In his ruling, the judge did uphold the federal government‘s argument for rewriting Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. The states had argued that the new burdens the federal government put on state Medicaid programs was unfair, but Judge Vinson said states always have the option - however unpalatable - of opting out of the program.

But he ruled in favor of states who said the individual mandate went beyond Congress‘ authority as granted by the Constitution.

Patmom, I really don't know how to interpret that statement.  How does that translate to medical care?

PatMom -- Guess what?  I get the care that is best for me; PiP gets the care that is best for her; Covertanjou gets the care that is best for her. Yes, all under Canada's universal healthcare system. So please, what are you talking about?  Or should I interpret your statement to mean that it's better to maintain the status quo and provide more/better/different/indifferent care based on one's ability to pay?

Well, this makes for interesting reading!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/02/reagans-solicitor-general-testifies-that-obamacare-is-constitutional.php?page=1  

Sorry - trying to make it linkable and can't seem to.

Medigal .. I don't have any pigs or chickens, but I do have a dog I could give my doc.  (just kidding)

Of course with a single payer system there were would be a medical tax.  Like Canada's system.  I did a comparison of Canada's tax system with ours, and found them to be quite similar.  The main difference was the higher earners paid a little more.  Our tax rates were very comparable otherwise.

Bren

I like being able to choose which doctor and which hospital I use.  I like being able to plan when to have non-emergency treatments to be the most convenient for my schedule and my family's schedule, not what works best for the government.  One of the major points of single payer is that everyone is in the same system, and the same line.  You get what works for the system, not necessarily what works for you.  In an area like the one I live in with access to many hospitals, I can choose any of them.  There are a variety of reasons that I choose a particular facility for treatment depending on the time frame, the issue that needs treatment, and that facility's reputation and location.  In a single payer system, there would be much less choice. 

There is a difference between providing care to everyone, and providing the same level of amenities along with that care.  There is a difference between providing good pre-natal care with a medically attended birth, and having a birthing room home like experience for the actual birth. 

I know that the Canadian system currently provides for the availability of private services, but there is no guarantee that an American system would have that, especially at the beginning.

I think if we came up with a way to provide quality care for those who currently can't afford it without taking away from people who currently have good insurance, or who can afford to pay the difference out of pocket, that would be much much more acceptable than single payer here.

edited for spelling and spacing errors