Like I Said...Get What You Wish For

[Guest]

In case you missed it. The Congressional Budget Office has " scored" the impact of the Supreme Court overturning the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare. Here's what they project will happen....
16 million people will come off the roles of those insured by private insurance companies.

Because of the loss of premium income, the insurance companies will have to increase premiums for those remaining policy holders by 15%.

Because of the increase in premiums, employers will drop offering company-paid health insurance to an additional 4 million people.
So, if those suing the government are successful, 20 million people will be returned to relying on hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare. The rest of us will pay 15% higher premiums to pay for these using ER's but not paying. The cost of our healthcare will continue to escalate as a percentage of our GDP. And the results in the quality of American healthcare won't improve.

Now I ask you, if it took 14 months for the Congress to create ObamaCare, how long might it take for them to come up with a 'replacement' law to replace what the Supreme Court might overturn? Will they even try?

Is this what we really want?

[Guest]

Mitch McConnell has already said they will do nothing.

[Guest]

In case you missed it. The Congressional Budget Office has " scored" the impact of the Supreme Court overturning the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare. Here's what they project will happen....
16 million people will come off the roles of those insured by private insurance companies.

Because of the loss of premium income, the insurance companies will have to increase premiums for those remaining insurers by 15%.

Because of the increase in premiums, employers will drop offering company-paid health insurance to an additional 4 million people.
So, if those suing the government are successful, 20 million people will be returned to relying on hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare. The rest of us will pay 15% higher premiums to pay for these using ER's but not paying.

Now I ask you, if it took 14 months for the Congress to create ObamaCare, how long might it take for them to come up with a 'replacement' law to replace what the Supreme Court might overturn? Will they even try?

Is this what we really want?

Do not have a lot of time to get into this deeply right now, but you ONLY list one alternative....and do not mention that how you have presented it is how it used to be....THAT is not good....but we then have a chance to have a redo....AND MAYBE...

This time we can discuss the lowering of costs, limits on suits, and do it publicly with NON politicians and get something done.

I realize I am making it sound much simpler that it is, but to say...ok it is unconstitutional but we don't trust our legislators to make it right, to me is self defeating.

Everyone realizes what it would mean, lets look for a way to fix it PUBLICLY, OPENLY, and address what the first effort was supposed to address.

I dont think either side disagrees that there is a need for reform, but we need legislation that ACTUALLY addresses the issues involved and is not politically motivated.

[Guest]

Mitch McConnell has already said they will do nothing.

He said no such thing !!!!

What purpose does making up things do for you ? Please deal with FACTS and stop making things up. You surely have the right to disagree, which by the way, at this point I may...but you just cannot make things up.

"In a column for Bloomberg View, Ramesh Ponnuru writes that McConnell vows he'll "try to repeal Obamacare." But when asked about a GOP counterproposal, the Senate minority leader does not plan on offering something of the same magnitude as Obama's law.

"We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes," McConnell said. "Not a massive Republican alternative."

Mitch McConnell On Health Care Law: 'More Incremental Fixes' Over 'A Massive Republican Alternative' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/mitch-mcconnell-health-care_n_1382539.html)

PLEASE stop with made up stuff and discuss reality !!!!!

Disagree...that is great for discussion, but do not allow your PARTY allegiance to allow your to make things up.

[Guest]

Do not have a lot of time to get into this deeply right now, but you ONLY list one alternative....and do not mention that how you have presented it is how it used to be....THAT is not good....but we then have a chance to have a redo....AND MAYBE...

This time we can discuss the lowering of costs, limits on suits, and do it publicly with NON politicians and get something done.

I realize I am making it sound much simpler that it is, but to say...ok it is unconstitutional but we don't trust our legislators to make it right, to me is self defeating.

Everyone realizes what it would mean, lets look for a way to fix it PUBLICLY, OPENLY, and address what the first effort was supposed to address.

I dont think either side disagrees that there is a need for reform, but we need legislation that ACTUALLY addresses the issues involved and is not politically motivated.

What kind of odds are you giving that that will happen? Realistically, I'd bet (big time) that it won't happen unless the Dems keep control of the Senate and regain control of the House. Don't get me wrong, I'd want it to happen, but from what we've seen since 2010 it"s almost hopeless. Civility and common sense are long gone from our Congress. Compromise is a dirty word. ... and it isn't any better in this forum ... everyone is acting like the little girls in the second semester of the 5th grade. God help us all!

Xavier

[Guest]

Do not have a lot of time to get into this deeply right now, but you ONLY list one alternative....and do not mention that how you have presented it is how it used to be....THAT is not good....but we then have a chance to have a redo....AND MAYBE...

This time we can discuss the lowering of costs, limits on suits, and do it publicly with NON politicians and get something done.

I realize I am making it sound much simpler that it is, but to say...ok it is unconstitutional but we don't trust our legislators to make it right, to me is self defeating.

Everyone realizes what it would mean, lets look for a way to fix it PUBLICLY, OPENLY, and address what the first effort was supposed to address.

I dont think either side disagrees that there is a need for reform, but we need legislation that ACTUALLY addresses the issues involved and is not politically motivated.Bucco, I would love to agree that this is what should happen, what should be done. I just don't think it can ever happen with the bitter partisan divide in the Congress. More importantly, how do you neuter the dozens if lobbyists lining the pockets of every single member of Congress with 'campaign contributions'?

Take your observation that the Congress completely bypassed including tort reform in ObamaCare. Do you think the lobbyists for the trial lawyers might have had something to do with that? And regardless of the amount of public debate, if tort reform comes up for a vote again, how much more will they spend to make sure no changes are made?

I'd love to agree with you on what should happen. I just think the chances of that are so remote as to suggest he need for some other approach. I'd like to think our Congress coud actually act to benefit the people. But all recent evidence shows they only serve themselves and the special interests that buy their votes.

Sorry for the 'glass half full' response on a Monday morning. Somebody tell me I'm wrong. Please!

[Guest]

On the "Morning Joe" program this morning, in an exchange between the junior GOP senator from Wisconsin and the chair of the medical ethics department at the U of Pennsylvania, there was heated discussin over how ObamaCare would effect healthcare costs.

The academician observed that the Massachusetts plan (which is ObamaCare without the hundreds of lobbyist-dictated inclusions) provides some evidence. He asserted that since it was enacted, more than 95% of Massachusetts residents are now insured and that premiums have declined by 40%.

I haven't researched this, but I will. Any MA residents out here? If true, this is pretty compelling evidence that their simpler program is working as intended.

[Guest]

In case you missed it. The Congressional Budget Office has " scored" the impact of the Supreme Court overturning the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare. Here's what they project will happen....
16 million people will come off the roles of those insured by private insurance companies.

Because of the loss of premium income, the insurance companies will have to increase premiums for those remaining policy holders by 15%.

Because of the increase in premiums, employers will drop offering company-paid health insurance to an additional 4 million people.
So, if those suing the government are successful, 20 million people will be returned to relying on hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare. The rest of us will pay 15% higher premiums to pay for these using ER's but not paying. The cost of our healthcare will continue to escalate as a percentage of our GDP. And the results in the quality of American healthcare won't improve.

Now I ask you, if it took 14 months for the Congress to create ObamaCare, how long might it take for them to come up with a 'replacement' law to replace what the Supreme Court might overturn? Will they even try?

Is this what we really want?

Again, the o.p. appears to want the states' attorneys general to ignore the CONSTITUTIONALITY of this law/mandate.

If the Supreme Court took the case because of the constitutional questions, then that is good enough for me.

The Supreme Court case is about constitutionality, not whether keeping or tossing it will cause more fiscal collapse caused by possibly keeping it or striking it down.

And BTW, I think proponents of the Obamacare law know that THAT is not the only way of resolving the healthcare FINANCE problems we have.

[Guest]

And BTW, I think proponents of the Obamacare law know that THAT is not the only way of resolving the healthcare FINANCE problems we have.

That is an understatement. In the end what they passed was certainly NOT what anyone envisioned. Not even close. It is, however, the best they could get under the circumstances. There is a ton of work to be done no matter what the Court's decision is.

Xavier

[Guest]

"What happened to the Eighth Amendment?" sighed, Justice Scalia the other day. That's the bit about cruel and unusual punishment. "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages"? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?"

He was making a narrow argument about "severability"__ about whether the court could junk the "individual manadate., but pick up and choose what best of ObamaCare to keep. Yet he was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700 page law is not a "law" by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rest on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there is no equality : Instead there is a hierarchy of priviledge micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable,, unknown and unnumbered bureaucracy. It is not just that legislators who legislate it don't know what's in it , nor that citizens on the receiving end can ever hope to understand it, but that even the most eminent judges acknowledge that is is beyond individual comprehension. A 2,700 page law is, by definition , an affront to self- government.

If the Supreme Court really wished to perform a service, it would declare henceforth no law can be longer than say, 27 pages.... Mark Steyn March 30the Orange County Register.

If that is were not enough consider not only the "Consitutionality" question of ObamaCare but the affect it will have on 17% of our GDP. Further that implementation of ObamaCare will materially affect the way we have been governed for 225 years.

There is ample information on the internet to counter the CBO's latest statistical data but why bother when if you can't understand how the law operates how can you do the math? But I suspect those are numbers being released by the Obama people to frighten citizens; including by the way Health Insurers.

Obama is staying true to his character and nature and has already begun a smear (partisan politic allegation) campaign against members the Supreme Court. That is he and his coharts are making claim that if ObamaCare is overturned it is because of paritsian politics. I mean it can't because its an indefensible law and not favored by the majority.

So my friends indeed watch what you wish for you just might get it.

[Guest]

VK...you appear to be correct....ALREADY it starts...it certainly appears how this side feels about the future.

"In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law."

"Some liberal groups are preparing to attack the court for judicial activism should the mandate be overturned, and Obama laid the groundwork for that argument on Monday, as he reminded conservatives of their fears of overreaching courts."

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html)

[Guest]

just like conservatives attack liberal judges as activists....this is not a one-way street. It's the new catch word when you disagree with a judge. Most of it is total nonsense as usual between two groups that continue to act like babies.

[Guest]

If we look at the upcoming Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare in purely political terms, it sure seems to be a loser for the Republicans. Consider what could happen if the Court overturns the individual mandate...
16 million people who now have subsidized private health insurance will be thrown back to ER's for their care. Say goodbye to those votes, mostly the poor and minorities.

All the college-aged kids who either can't get or can't afford insurance, and are covered under their parents' policies, will suddenly be left in the lurch. Goodbye to the youth vote, as well as the votes of well-meaning and concerned parents.

Tens of millions of people who have private insurance will see their premiums go up substantially. After seeing their premiums increase by about 40% in the last five years, I think you can kiss lots of votes of angry and suddenly much poorer policy holders goodbye.

If the CBO is correct in their projections, employers of as many as 4 million employees will lose their company-paid health insurance because the employers can no longer afford to offer the benefit. They won't happily support the candidates who say they wanted to repeal ObamaCare.

How about all the doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers who will suddenly have to write off their bills for treatment of the newly uninsured in ER's? Oh yeah, they'll enthusiastically line up behind the candidates who wanted this to happen.

And what about the state's attorneys general who banded together to sue? All of a sudden, their state Medicaid programs will be under water, their local hospitals and doctors won't be paid, and their residents will be voting them out of office too.
If the Court overturns all or even major parts of ObamaCare, there is no GOP candidate who'll be able to get far enough away to escape the shrapnel from the public explosion over lost benefits.

From a political strategy point-of-view, wouldn't it have been better to nick away at the least desirable parts of the bill or add in things that are missing, as opposed to just cratering the whole thing? The critics all say that what we need is a "free market" solution. But ObamaCare already is based heavily on private insurers--the single payer system originally proposed was lost early in the fighting over what will be in the bill.

For those who want to replace President Obama, solidify a majority in the House, and maybe take control of the Senate, this has to be the "losingest" political strategy that I can imagine. I wonder if any of the political geniuses ever thought about that?

[Guest]

Too bad insurance companies don't consider obesity and addiction (ie smoking) as prior conditions and refuse to cover anybody afflicted with either. Think of the money that would save not covering the diseases, diabetes and lung cancer, that are preventable. I'm calling my congressman with my money saving idea.

[Guest]

just like conservatives attack liberal judges as activists....this is not a one-way street. It's the new catch word when you disagree with a judge. Most of it is total nonsense as usual between two groups that continue to act like babies.

While your presentation is flawed, in that this was about a President of the United States offering comments like this WHILE the Supreme Court is deliberating....A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

However, on the main thrust of your comment about both sides claiming this depending on the situation, I would agree......not sure I ever heard these strong comments on the SUPREME court at this stage of deliberation, but your main idea I agree with.

[Guest]

If we look at the upcoming Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare in purely political terms, it sure seems to be a loser for the Republicans. Consider what could happen if the Court overturns the individual mandate...
16 million people who now have subsidized private health insurance will be thrown back to ER's for their care. Say goodbye to those votes, mostly the poor and minorities.

All the college-aged kids who either can't get or can't afford insurance, and are covered under their parents' policies, will suddenly be left in the lurch. Goodbye to the youth vote, as well as the votes of well-meaning and concerned parents.

Tens of millions of people who have private insurance will see their premiums go up substantially. After seeing their premiums increase by about 40% in the last five years, I think you can kiss lots of votes of angry and suddenly much poorer policy holders goodbye.

If the CBO is correct in their projections, employers of as many as 4 million employees will lose their company-paid health insurance because the employers can no longer afford to offer the benefit. They won't happily support the candidates who say they wanted to repeal ObamaCare.

How about all the doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers who will suddenly have to write off their bills for treatment of the newly uninsured in ER's? Oh yeah, they'll enthusiastically line up behind the candidates who wanted this to happen.

And what about the state's attorneys general who banded together to sue? All of a sudden, their state Medicaid programs will be under water, their local hospitals and doctors won't be paid, and their residents will be voting them out of office too.
If the Court overturns all or even major parts of ObamaCare, there is no GOP candidate who'll be able to get far enough away to escape the shrapnel from the public explosion over lost benefits.

From a political strategy point-of-view, wouldn't it have been better to nick away at the least desirable parts of the bill or add in things that are missing, as opposed to just cratering the whole thing? The critics all say that what we need is a "free market" solution. But ObamaCare already is based heavily on private insurers--the single payer system originally proposed was lost early in the fighting over what will be in the bill.

For those who want to replace President Obama, solidify a majority in the House, and maybe take control of the Senate, this has to be the "losingest" political strategy that I can imagine. I wonder if any of the political geniuses ever thought about that?

In some ways I agree with you, and in some I do not.

Yep,this will lose some votes, but I would suggest that they, the Reps, would not have gotten them anyway

I also will point out that there is a case to be made to the MAJORITY of voters who do not approve of this law that this is best for the country, ALTHOUGH...I will add sarcastically that from reading on here..what is best for the country does not seem to be important.

Lastly, I do not believe the court will issue a decision without weighing and hopefully coming up with some remedies for it. Being really optimistic today.

PS...they could also insure the message that they will allow the american people to see and hear the debate and formation of the law which Obama promised but did not do.

[Guest]

Too bad insurance companies don't consider obesity and addiction (ie smoking) as prior conditions and refuse to cover anybody afflicted with either. Think of the money that would save not covering the diseases, diabetes and lung cancer, that are preventable. I'm calling my congressman with my money saving idea.

You post this sarcastically and this is the problem.

BOTH sides understand what you are passing off as some new thought from the left....both sides get it. This bill passed in secrecy in back rooms giving away to those insurance companies and others for strictly political gain is not what this country needs.

You can be sarcastic as much as you want.....hope your party gives you a medal as this kind of attitude is strictly party oriented.

This country need a health care revision...tort reform...address health costs, BOTH promised by Obama.....BOTH ignored by Obama !

[Guest]

Not directly related to the thread, but does anyone ever recall a sitting President of the United States ever being so arrogant as to actually call out the Supreme Court.....

"US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law."

Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html)

I mean, reminding the supreme court that they are "unelected" is quite an arrogant statement isnt it ?

Anyone know of a President talking to the court like this ? I dont, but that means nothing....was curious because the statement sort of took me back.

[Guest]

Not directly related to the thread, but does anyone ever recall a sitting President of the United States ever being so arrogant as to actually call out the Supreme Court.....

"US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law."

Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html)

I mean, reminding the supreme court that they are "unelected" is quite an arrogant statement isnt it ?

Anyone know of a President talking to the court like this ? I don't, but that means nothing....was curious because the statement sort of took me back.

Obama certainly didn't note anything flimsy about those "unelected" Supreme Court positions when he appointed his Solicitor General--Elena Kegan--to be a judge on that court so she would be hearing and deciding on the very law SHE PROMULGATED on behalf of the Administration.

And he certainly does not note anything flimsy about Kagan now arguing to bolster the weak arguments of the solicitor general who took her place and is now arguing the case before her and the rest of the court!

[Guest]

Too bad insurance companies don't consider obesity and addiction (ie smoking) as prior conditions and refuse to cover anybody afflicted with either. Think of the money that would save not covering the diseases, diabetes and lung cancer, that are preventable. I'm calling my congressman with my money saving idea.

Soooo, lung cancer is preventable? Smoking is the only cause? Man, you ain't had working men/woman in your family I figure.

[Guest]

Soooo, lung cancer is preventable? Smoking is the only cause? Man, you ain't had working men/woman in your family I figure.

Right. The bigotry and discrimination of the "tolerant" liberals expands now against non-smoking lung cancer patients......

"Lung cancer in non-smokers is more common than many people realize. In fact, lung cancer in never-smokers is now considered the 6th most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States.

Though we lump smokers and non-smokers together when discussing lung cancer, lung cancer in non-smokers is a different disease in many ways. What do we know about lung cancer in non-smokers?

Statistics About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

Overall, 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50% occur in former smokers.)

Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20% of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women....."

Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers - Facts About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers (http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/a/lungcancernonsmokers.htm)

[Guest]

Right. The bigotry and discrimination of the "tolerant" liberals expands now against non-smoking lung cancer patients......

"Lung cancer in non-smokers is more common than many people realize. In fact, lung cancer in never-smokers is now considered the 6th most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States.

Though we lump smokers and non-smokers together when discussing lung cancer, lung cancer in non-smokers is a different disease in many ways. What do we know about lung cancer in non-smokers?

Statistics About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

Overall, 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50% occur in former smokers.)

Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20% of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women....."

Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers - Facts About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers (http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/a/lungcancernonsmokers.htm)

You bet. The working men/women jumped in when the boss said to. The boss didn't know it was hazardous? Maybe. Many new things discovered that cause Cancer.

[Guest]

In some ways I agree with you, and in some I do not.

Yep,this will lose some votes, but I would suggest that they, the Reps, would not have gotten them anyway

I also will point out that there is a case to be made to the MAJORITY of voters who do not approve of this law that this is best for the country, ALTHOUGH...I will add sarcastically that from reading on here..what is best for the country does not seem to be important.

Lastly, I do not believe the court will issue a decision without weighing and hopefully coming up with some remedies for it. Being really optimistic today.

PS...they could also insure the message that they will allow the american people to see and hear the debate and formation of the law which Obama promised but did not do.Boy, you really are being hopeful and optimistic today, Bucco. I wish I could share your optimism.

All I can say is that the GOP candidates need to attract a lot of those voters who they might not have "gotten" in prior elections. According to this morning's polls, Romney is as much as 30 points behind Obama among women, worse than that among Hispanics, and about 10-15 points down among other minorities. He's even polling worse than Obama among white, working class males. Continuing to fire away on repealing ObamaCare doesn't seem to be a strategy that will attract back voters from those segments that he really needs.

As far as what the true majority feels about ObamaCare, I really wonder whether most people have really thought through the impact that a repeal of the law would have, and the dismal probability that Congress would be inclined to even consider more healthcare legislation anytime soon. I think you posted a quote from Mitch McConnell, who said basically that a little "work around the edges" is about all that can be expected.

I don't know what to expect from the Court. Will they be activist and "make law" from the bench? Or will they rule solely on the constitutionality of the issue? They are clearly competent to rule on constitutional questions. I'm not as confident that they have the skill, experience or time to make competent rulings on the complexities of a 2,700 page healthcare law that took Congress 14 months to put together.

To some extent, I have to chuckle. In prior judicial confirmation hearings, it's been the Republican members of the judiciary committee and the Senate who have railed against candidates put up by liberal presidents, asserting that they would be activists and make law from the bench. Now, that's exactly what those same politicians are hoping for from the conservative justices.

I guess we'll see, first on the outcome of the Court proceedings, then on the outcome of the fall general election.

[Guest]

Boy, you really are being hopeful and optimistic today, Bucco. I wish I could share your optimism.

All I can say is that the GOP candidates need to attract a lot of those voters who they might not have "gotten" in prior elections. According to this morning's polls, Romney is as much as 30 points behind Obama among women, worse than that among Hispanics, and about 10-15 points down among other minorities. He's even polling worse than Obama among white, working class males. Continuing to fire away on repealing ObamaCare doesn't seem to be a strategy that will attract back voters from those segments that he really needs.

As far as what the true majority feels about ObamaCare, I really wonder whether most people have really thought through the impact that a repeal of the law would have, and the dismal probability that Congress would be inclined to even consider more healthcare legislation anytime soon. I think you posted a quote from Mitch McConnell, who said basically that a little "work around the edges" is about all that can be expected.

I don't know what to expect from the Court. Will they be activist and "make law" from the bench? Or will they rule solely on the constitutionality of the issue? They are clearly competent to rule on constitutional questions. I'm not as confident that they have the skill, experience or time to make competent rulings on the complexities of a 2,700 page healthcare law that took Congress 14 months to put together.

To some extent, I have to chuckle. In prior judicial confirmation hearings, it's been the Republican members of the judiciary committee and the Senate who have railed against candidates put up by liberal presidents, asserting that they would be activists and make law from the bench. Now, that's exactly what those same politicians are hoping for from the conservative justices.

I guess we'll see, first on the outcome of the Court proceedings, then on the outcome of the fall general election.

Do you ever recall a sitting President of the United States calling out the court at this point in deliberation and referring to their not being elected ?

Serious question

[Guest]

In case you missed it. The Congressional Budget Office has " scored" the impact of the Supreme Court overturning the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare. Here's what they project will happen....
16 million people will come off the roles of those insured by private insurance companies.

Because of the loss of premium income, the insurance companies will have to increase premiums for those remaining policy holders by 15%.

Because of the increase in premiums, employers will drop offering company-paid health insurance to an additional 4 million people.
So, if those suing the government are successful, 20 million people will be returned to relying on hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare. The rest of us will pay 15% higher premiums to pay for these using ER's but not paying. The cost of our healthcare will continue to escalate as a percentage of our GDP. And the results in the quality of American healthcare won't improve.

Now I ask you, if it took 14 months for the Congress to create ObamaCare, how long might it take for them to come up with a 'replacement' law to replace what the Supreme Court might overturn? Will they even try?

Is this what we really want?

This says it better than I, of course that is a small task for anyone...

"In the span of one week, Democrats went from dismissing the possibility that the Supreme Court would strike down the 2010 law mandating individuals to buy health insurance to consoling themselves that any such action would have a silver lining.

James Carville says it would help the Democrats in the election. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson writes that it would make single payer -- a government health system as in the U.K. and Canada -- “inevitable.” Other liberals, and even the occasional right-of-center analyst, have echoed that point: The conservative legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul could prove self-defeating.

It’s an interesting and counterintuitive analysis, but it’s almost certainly wrong. If the court undoes Obamacare, either in whole or in part, conservatives who would like to reduce the government’s role in health care are likely to get policies much more to their liking.

Let’s say the court strikes down the entire law. The Democratic fantasy goes something like this: The public will still be upset about the number of Americans without insurance, rising premiums and the difficulty people with pre-existing conditions have getting insurance. Republicans will have no plan for achieving universal coverage. Sooner or later, single payer -- which would probably be more popular than a mandate, and thus an easier sell to the public -- will prevail"

AND THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART...

"Reality-check time: When Obamacare became law, Democrats had more power in Washington than at any time since the Carter administration in the 1970s. They had the presidency and lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. Because conservative Democrats have declined in numbers, it was probably the most liberal Congress since 1965-66. They were still barely able to pass the law. And that was with important medical industries either neutralized or in favor of the legislation, which they would not be in the case of single payer. "

Democrats Resort to Magical Thinking on Obamacare - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/democrats-resort-to-magical-thinking-on-obamacare.html)

[Guest]

Do you ever recall a sitting President of the United States calling out the court at this point in deliberation and referring to their not being elected ?

Serious questionI don't. But then again, we've never had a President who was lawyer and professor of Constitutional law at a top law school. Do I think he should have opined on the matter from his office? No. But am I all excited about it? Another no. Do I think the nine justices will pay even one little bit of attention to what the president thinks? No.

In so many words, I don't think his statement is worth worrying about.

[Guest]

I don't. But then again, we've never had a President who was lawyer and professor of Constitutional law at a top law school. Do I think he should have opined on the matter from his office? No. But am I all excited about it? Another no. Do I think the nine justices will pay even one little bit of attention to what the president thinks? No.

In so many words, I don't think his statement is worth worrying about.

I AGREE...it simply points to the absolute arrogance of the man !!!!

[Guest]

This says it better than I, of course that is a small task for anyone...

"In the span of one week, Democrats went from dismissing the possibility that the Supreme Court would strike down the 2010 law mandating individuals to buy health insurance to consoling themselves that any such action would have a silver lining.

James Carville says it would help the Democrats in the election. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson writes that it would make single payer -- a government health system as in the U.K. and Canada -- “inevitable.” Other liberals, and even the occasional right-of-center analyst, have echoed that point: The conservative legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul could prove self-defeating.

It’s an interesting and counterintuitive analysis, but it’s almost certainly wrong. If the court undoes Obamacare, either in whole or in part, conservatives who would like to reduce the government’s role in health care are likely to get policies much more to their liking.

Let’s say the court strikes down the entire law. The Democratic fantasy goes something like this: The public will still be upset about the number of Americans without insurance, rising premiums and the difficulty people with pre-existing conditions have getting insurance. Republicans will have no plan for achieving universal coverage. Sooner or later, single payer -- which would probably be more popular than a mandate, and thus an easier sell to the public -- will prevail"

AND THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART...

"Reality-check time: When Obamacare became law, Democrats had more power in Washington than at any time since the Carter administration in the 1970s. They had the presidency and lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. Because conservative Democrats have declined in numbers, it was probably the most liberal Congress since 1965-66. They were still barely able to pass the law. And that was with important medical industries either neutralized or in favor of the legislation, which they would not be in the case of single payer. "

Democrats Resort to Magical Thinking on Obamacare - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/democrats-resort-to-magical-thinking-on-obamacare.html)I particularly agree with the second and third paragraphs. I truly believe that the Republican's efforts to overturn the law is a big-time losing political strategy. So much so that it's clearly within the realm of possibility that the Democrats re-take the House, Senate and the White House.

Where I differ with the article is the author's attempt to project that a rejuvenated totally Democratic government would have the same difficulty crafting clearcut, simple legislation as they obviously had in the past.

When the Democrats had the majorities you refer to, they had the same problem that the Republican-controlled House has now--a Senate not controlled by a simple majority, but by the minority who still has cloture powers under Senate rules.

Where I think a difference may lie is the seriousness of the disastrous political strategy currently being undertaken by the GOP. The results of the next couple of elections could easily create Democratic majorities sufficient to overcome even Senate cloture rules. Then the only problem may be how much lobbyists for special interests will influence whatever legislation created by such a politically-lopsided Congress.

[Guest]

I AGREE...it simply points to the absolute arrogance of the man !!!!Whether arrogance has been a primary character trait of men elected to the Presidency is a question. Some have been more arrogant than others, but they've all exhibited arrogance to a degree. Think about those who have held the office. Eisenhower? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Clinton? Seems to me there was lots of arrogance among that group. About the only ones where arrogance may not have been a primary trait might have been Ford and Carter.

Interestingly, Ford and Carter were both one-term Presidents. Maybe the public likes a bit of arrogance from its President.

[Guest]

VK, Just for the record Obama was not a professor. He was a lecturer.

[Guest]

A number of presidents in the past have touched the possibility of health care reform and it was always dropped. Now as you hace said it will cast us even more without it than with it. Had it not have even started we would not have been worse for the wear. Why do we pay for people that use the er's for their doctors. I go to a doctor and they want payment for service that day. Why are hospitals any different. obamacare should have never been signed but now we have a mess and it will be with us forever. Not a well thought out plan. Or was it

[Guest]

I'm not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure that as a condition of their certification, hospitals are required to treat anyone visiting their emergency rooms.

The result, of course, is that the hospitals simply shift that cost to those with insurance by increasing their fees for the "paying patients". So, the insurance companies wind up paying for everyone, whether or not they have insurance, and reflect that in their premiums to those who pay them.

[Guest]

VK - it may vary from state to state but you're right. What hospitals WON'T tell you is that many will do a quick bit of treatment and then transfer a patient to another hospital. A process called 'dumping'. When I worked at Beth Israel Hospital, we got a lot of people 'dumped' at our place.

[Guest]

VK - it may vary from state to state but you're right. What hospitals WON'T tell you is that many will do a quick bit of treatment and then transfer a patient to another hospital. A process called 'dumping'. When I worked at Beth Israel Hospital, we got a lot of people 'dumped' at our place.

Wasn't that Michelle's job before becoming the flotus?

[Guest]

Wasn't that Michelle's job before becoming the flotus?There is some evidence that the procedure for shifting uninsured or public aid patients to smaller, community hospitals was a part of Michelle Obama's job at the University of Chicago hospitals.

But that report raises an interesting question, I think. Should non-paying or uninsured patients have an equal right to the care provided by the top, most skilled and well-equipped healthcare providers and hospitals, or should they be directed "down the food chain" to other providers? So long as an emphasis is placed on operating the healthcare industry on a free market basis, this procedure seems to be completely appropriate.

Unlike socialized medicine where everyone is treated equally, our healthcare system--at least until ObamaCare--resulted in a large percentage of Americans having neither insurance or an ability to pay for the highest quality healthcare privately. So, should those with little or no ability to pay be permitted access to the best healthcare our country has to offer? I think maybe the old saying..."Beggars can't be choosers"...is pretty apropos in this instance.

Personally, I think such a system is almost irresponsibly cruel for a country as developed as the U.S. In fact, we're the ONLY developed country that has such a class-oriented healthcare system. Yet politically, a significant proportion of Americans want to keep it that way. So I guess the question remains...should beggars be permitted to be choosers?

[Guest]

ER visits and health care costs rise in Massachusetts due to lack of primary care access
in PHYSICIAN

Color me unsurprised.

A Boston Globe article today confirmed what has been discussed on this blog during the past year. Universal care without primary care access is a recipe to increase both emergency department crowding and health care spending.

We now have more data to back up this expected conclusion.

Despite an individual mandate covering almost everyone in Massachusetts, the cost of emergency care has risen 17 percent over the past two years, while ER visits rose 7 percent.

Stating the obvious, officials have concluded that, “emergency room crowding and rising costs will not be solved by providing people with health insurance alone,” and, what is needed “are more primary care doctors and nurses.”

It is very likely that whatever plan President Obama and Congress hammer out will look very similar to the Massachusetts approach, and I fully expect that the federal plan also will include an individual mandate, forcing everyone to purchase insurance.

And again, the results are going to be predictable. Without adequate primary care access, these newly insured patients will flood already crowded emergency rooms for care, further driving up spending and costs.

If you think what’s happening in Massachusetts, which by the way, has the highest density of physicians per capita in the country, is scary, replicating this scenario nationwide will be truly frightening."

In the end, "insurance" is not "healthcare".

ER visits and health care costs rise in Massachusetts due to lack of primary care access (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/er-visits-and-health-care-costs-rise-in.html)