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?

Mitch McConnell has already said they will do nothing.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by coralway

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'

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.

Originally Posted by Bucco

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

Originally Posted by Bucco

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

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

"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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by waynet

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.