1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Supreme Court Health Care Prediction Thread

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by crusha, Jun 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    So, we're told the tablets will descend from the mountain on Thursday. Let's hope for another act of Jesus!


    But, I predict: they strike down the Individual Mandate...while leaving the rest of this turd intact.


    How about you?
     
  2. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,642
    I don't have a prediction about Thursday's announcement. However, if the scotus fails to kill it, Speaker Boner has promised to repeal one provision at a time until the entire bill is gone. With all of Boner's political skill and wisdom brought to bear, we can expect healthcare (1/6th of the U.S. economy) to fall under direct government control right on schedule.

    sissy
     
  3. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Yeah...but at least he can be depended on to have a good cry about it!
     
  4. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    You're probably right buzzy, but who knows what those clown will do. I stopped predicting after "Kelo v. City of New London".

    If the individual mandate is thrown out what good is the bill? It's no good anyway, but the whole premise of it is that if everybody has to buy insurance then all the so called cost savings/affordability............

    Betting on the Supreme Court is like betting on Sonny Liston. You never know when the fix is in or which justice is going to take a dive on any given issue.
     
  5. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    See Biss, that's where I think the pundits are all wrong. I really don't think the Individual Mandate was as important as everybody is making out. The way I understand it (maybe I'm wrong), is the I/M was just a quid-pro-quo to the insurance companies, to get them on-board with accepting all these new insurance regulations...ie, they can't cherry-pick customers, there are no lifetime maximums, they can't drop people just because they get sick, etc. In exchange, they get a guarantee that the Gubmint will force all young, healthy Americans to purchase their product - the "Individual Mandate," which is the subject of the court case. It had no Great Public Purpose, and was never intended as anything more than a bone to the insurance companies.


    The way I see it, if the court does away with the I/M, it just shafts the insurance companies (perhaps running them out of business sooner), but does nothing to affect implementation of the rest of the bill. The next day, the Obama administration comes out with a "harrumph" and states the Federal Gubmint will go ahead with setting up the Bureaucracy, creating the Exchanges, collecting the taxes, etc.


    The Public Option was the key. If the Libs had gotten that in the Bill, the Court would have had to accept that the democratically determined will of the people was to have socialized medicine, and therefore, the I/M is logically consistent with the system of medicine chosen by the People - you simply can't let people opt-out when they're healthy, then opt-in when they're sick, or the system would go tits-up in no time. If they'd gotten that, I think the court would uphold the whole thing.


    But - they DIDN'T get the Public Option. There was no public will to create socialized medicine, and therefore no imperative for an Individual Mandate to keep the public's chosen system solvent. So all this amounts to, is a very large insurance regulation bill, and the only purpose of the I/M was to keep the insurance companies solvent. But the Court is not concerned with making companies solvent; they are only supposed to consider the Constitutionality of the provision. That's why I think they'll say the hell with making the Insurance Companies whole; take care of the individual liberty question by stripping the I/M, but let the rest go into effect, leaving to Congress the perogative of "correcting" any other shortcomings of the law through the political process.


    Of course it will be a mess. But since Obama didn't get the Public Option, he and the Democrats _want_ it to be a train wreck. That way, they can come back and "fix" it later! This is NOT over. They will be back, to get the rest of what they came for. And if the insurance companies get run out of business 5 or 10 years sooner, so much the better for their goals.


    We will get higher taxes (for sure), more expensive insurance (as the Insurance Companies try to recover what the Government is ramming out of them)...and, the Liberals will still be right back up our ass in 5 years, pushing another bill to Socialize everything ("See? Those GREEDY corporations just raised your premiums, didn't they? It's more proof of why you need to let us implement SINGLE PAYER").


    My opinion is, if the Court only strikes down the I/M and leaves the rest, it ends up being an Obama victory in the long run. It creates an unsustainable "train wreck," and sets the stage for them to come back and Communize America later.


    But hey - I could be wrong.


    (By the way, I do agree Kelo v. Connecticut was a disaster. But hey, I guess we have to take one of those, in exchange for affirming the Second Amendment, and ramming corporate donations up Trappy's kiester!)
     
  6. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    No, you're not wrong. I believe like you believe (I think) that the whole purpose of the so called Obamacare bill was to run/bankrupt the insurance companies out of business. With the insurance companies gone then they will be drum beat from the masses for government to take over the whole thing.

    I guess my point was what good is the bill without the I/M (individual mandate, not improved modify). So if the bill is worthless without the I/M then the whole thing should be thrown out. But the SC will probably pick and parse individual paragraphs.

    Do you think any of the 9 have really read the whole bill? I doubt if anyone has made it passed page 50. Any sane human being with having read that far into the bill would HAVE to declare the whole thing crap, and throw it out.

    But again you are probably correct in your first post. They will throw out the I/M and let the rest of the bill stand. It's wrong but chances are that is what will happen.
     
  7. jbbor

    jbbor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,036
    6 to 3 to uphold the whole stinking mess. If they don't throw out the whole thing, just as Buzz says, were totally screwed. Jimmy Borum
     
  8. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The whole premise of the Individual Mandate is a moot point if ObamaCare exempts illegal aliens, the welfare class, unions and others. The list of exemptions is staggering. These groups are already opted out. So where's the mandate? Oh, that's right, only those who work for a living have to pay, like the working poor and the middle class. I hope this was pointed out to the court.

    The intent of ObamaCare is to get millions into the health care rolls by rationing health care. Nothing says it louder or clearer than the decree that those 75 and older do not get cancer treatment.
     
  9. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    There is one potential thorn for the Obama administration - apparently, the bill as-passed contained no "severability" clause. In other words, if one part is struck down, the rest cannot stand on its own. (This is normally included in most legislation, to make sure that court injunctions against part of a law do not invalidate the entire law).


    But, like I said, I have no intention of reading the damn thing, so who knows?
     
  10. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    The Republicans should be talking about what they would replace it with. They have an opportunity to be FOR something not merely against things. Seize the initiative.
     
  11. gdbabin

    gdbabin TS Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,461
    If the IM is struck down as unconstitutional, does that open the door for a suit challenging the State mandate on automobile liability insurance?


    For discussion, what's the difference????



    Guy Babin
     
  12. mixer

    mixer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,386
    Location:
    Coral Springs, Florida
    The difference is that auto liability insurance covers the damage/injury to the other car/driver or to you if you're the injured party via the other drivers liability coverage. Completely different sceanario than mandatory health coverage.

    Eric
     
  13. gdbabin

    gdbabin TS Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,461
    I understand what auto liability is Eric.


    The government mandate to buy something is not dissimilar.





    Guy B.
     
  14. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Actually the requirement for auto insurance isn't comparable to the requirment to by health insurance. In the first place, the former is required by states, not the federal government. The constitution gives states powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. That's why Romneycare in Mass is constitutional and Obamacare isn't.

    The biggest difference, however, is that driving is a privilege not a right. As such the states can require a license, vehicle registration, insurance, etc. without running afoul of the constitution. The Obama care mandate is built on the "interstate commerce" clause and requires a person to engage in commerce against their will. In other words, you will be required to buy a product you might not want to buy. For auto insurance, there is no requirement to buy that insurance unless you choose to avail youself of the privilege of driving an automobile. You don't have to buy it just because you happen to be alive.
     
  15. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    All logical points, Galtie...and here's another: in most states, you're not forced to buy auto liability insurance, if you can post bond or similar instrument establishing sufficient financial reserves to cover damages you cause to another person, by your own fault.


    But under Obamacare, you could be the richest person on Earth, and still be fined if you don't buy insurance (it's really a revenue-generating instrument, more than anything).


    Also, the states' auto liability laws could generally care less whether you drive your car into a river, or kill yourself in the process.


    I guess what we really need to determine here, is when GBabin says the word "difference," does he mean "difference" in the technical, logical sense...or "difference" in the sense of "Deep down, I'm a somewhat liberal person who thinks the Government should legislate this world to be more fair."


    If the latter, you're wasting your time arguing with him.
     
  16. Trappy12

    Trappy12 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,467
    You guys do realize, that the mandate benefits the private insurance companies more than anybody else, right? Everyone has to buy healthcare. More money is given to the insurance companies for their services. Now, insurance has more money in its services. Sure, there are more people enrolled, but there's much more money so costs will go down. That sounds terrible to me. Stupid socialist president. (I'm not really sure what socialism means, I just know that Obama is one! Right? I heard that somewhere so it must be true!)

    And which one of you thinks it's a terrible thing that one cannot be refused healthcare based on pre-existing conditions, or for children to be under their parents plan until they are 26? Please, tell me what is so bad, so, SOCIALIST, about that one. Granted, mandating that citizens have healthcare isn't socialism either.

    -Trappy
     
  17. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    Gee, trappy you make sense. I'll just wait to buy auto insurance after I wreck the car. After all they can't turn my smashed fender away because it is a preexisting condition anymore.

    And nobody is being refused healthcare because of preexisting conditions. You might not get somebody else to pay for it but you can still get healthcare. You might have to pay for it yourself, but then who should pay for it? You purchase auto insurance before you wreck the car, you buy home owners insurance before the house burns down. You should've purchased health insurance before you had the heart attack.

    Buzzy will you follow the SC ruling tomorrow and post the outcome. I will be under the weather tomorrow as I've been invited to an outing hosted by Budweiser. I expect to avail myself to all offered hospitality. Thank you, I just don't want to wade through all the bs. If you could write a paragraph or 2 on the ruling. I would appreciate it.

    Bisi
     
  18. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Trappy probably thinks one should be able to buy life insurance after death. What a goof.
     
  19. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    Galt, you cut through to the bone quicker than I. Can you imagine buying life insurance on someone after they die? I guess trappy does. Ah hell what, if any, would the time limitations be? My Father died 13 years ago, at the time I didn't need the money, but since the Great Recession..... Do you think I can go and get a million or hell I would even settle for a half million dollar policy. Make one or two payments then file.

    That trappy might be on to something.
     
  20. Trappy12

    Trappy12 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,467
    So you brought up auto insurance, I'll do the same. My driving record is clean, no tickets or anything so therefor my auto insurance since I am 25, is ridiculously expensive. Though since my record is clean, it is less ridiculously expensive that those who have had accidents. Say you're currently on Allstate and are switching to State Farm. You, of course, have a pristine driving record, but your wife has 4 accidents in the last 3 years. Well they aren't going to tell her "no, we won't insure you," it will just cost a lot more because they assume more risk in taking on the client. Somebody who has diagnosed heart disease brings more risk to the health insurance table than someone such as myself, so they would be charged more. Simple as that. They will pay more for it, but not denied it.

    -Trappy
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.