Watching the initial oral arguments to the Supreme Court regarding the plea to strike down all or part of Obamacare, the possibilities are sad, but almost laughable.

The Court correctly described the law as having been "cobbled together" with "parliamentary shenanigans". Early court-watchers seem to think that the law will be gutted by the Court. But the Court itself seems to be saying that they are not smart enough to rule on the hundreds of "mini-laws" contained in the bill that were created in the process of putting the whole thing together. I described the bill shortly after it was passed as a Rube Goldberg piece of legislation that seemed to have everything in it that virtually every party to healthcare wanted included. The media described that "champagne was flowing" in the lobbyists' offices on K Street after the law was passed. The politicians, particularly those on the left, have lauded the bill as a wonderful step forward in upgrading the healthcare for most Americans, particularly the tens of millions who depend only on hospital emergency rooms for their care.

If important parts of the law are struck down by the Court, we may have the old story of actually "getting something we wished for".

Now that initial arguments seem to indicate that the Court might strike down the "individual mandate" part of the law, the insurance companies are in full retreat. They're now saying that if the profits from the new customers resulting from the mandate that everyone have insurance are lost without the Court also overturning on the requirement that insurance must be provided to almost everyone, regardless of existing conditions and unlimited by a maximum lifetime payout, they may have to materially increase premiums for everyone else in order to maintain their profitability.

We won't know for awhile what the Supreme Court will finally decide. But it could easily turn out to be considerably more expensive for all of us...and still not address the problems of tens of millions of uninsured Americans and the effect on our economy of the unsustainable growth of healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP.

If the whole mess gets thrown back to Congress to make the obviously necessary changes, what do you think the chances of that happening might be? Maybe we should form another super-committee. So far at least, there's no evidence that the justices are agreeing to meet with any lobbyists.

This is better than a single payer system of government-provided heath insurance like Medicare? Surely you jest.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Watching the initial oral arguments to the Supreme Court regarding the plea to strike down all or part of Obamacare, the possibilities are sad, but almost laughable.

The Court correctly described the law as having been "cobbled together" with "parliamentary shenanigans". Early court-watchers seem to think that the law will be gutted by the Court. But the Court itself seems to be saying that they are not smart enough to rule on the hundreds of "mini-laws" contained in the bill that were created in the process of putting the whole thing together. I described the bill shortly after it was passed as a Rube Goldberg piece of legislation that seemed to have everything in it that virtually every party to healthcare wanted included. The media described that "champagne was flowing" in the lobbyists' offices on K Street after the law was passed. The politicians, particularly those on the left, have lauded the bill as a wonderful step forward in upgrading the healthcare for most Americans, particularly the tens of millions who depend only on hospital emergency rooms for their care.

If important parts of the law are struck down by the Court, we may have the old story of actually "getting something we wished for".

Now that initial arguments seem to indicate that the Court might strike down the "individual mandate" part of the law, the insurance companies are in full retreat. They're now saying that if the profits from all the new customers resulting from the mandate that almost everyone have insurance are removed without the Court also ruling on the requirement that they provide insurance to almost everyone, regardless of existing conditions and unlimited by a maximum lifetime payout, they may have to materially increase premiums for everyone else in order to maintain their profitability.

We won't know for awhile what the Supreme Court will finally decide. But it could easily turn out to be considerably more expensive for all of us...and still not address the problems of tens of millions of uninsured Americans and the effect on our economy of the unsustainable growth of healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP.

If the whole mess gets thrown back to Congress to make the obviuos necessary changes, what do you think the chances of that happening might be? Maybe we should form another super-committee. So far at least, there's no evidence that the justices are agreeing to meet with any lobbyists.

This is better than a single payer system of government-provided heath insurance like Medicare? Surely you jest.

Maybe the President of the United States could do what he said he strongly he would do in the first place and have an OPEN, unfettered debate on the health care issue instead of the backroom deals and blackmail involved in this fiasco.

By the way, no wonder these guys are on the court..they speak so well...my comments over the last few years, while saying the same thing, are not as pretty as "parliamentary shenanigans" !!!

This congress on BOTH sides of the aisle have shown no aptitude to be statesmen, and do what is best for the country..only what is good for R or D

Originally Posted by Bucco

Maybe the President of the United States could do what he said he strongly he would do in the first place and have an OPEN, unfettered debate on the health care issue instead of the backroom deals and blackmail involved in this fiasco.

By the way, no wonder these guys are on the court..they speak so well...my comments over the last few years, while saying the same thing, are not as pretty as "parliamentary shenanigans" !!!

This congress on BOTH sides of the aisle have shown no aptitude to be statesmen, and do what is best for the country..only what is good for R or D

When attempts were made to have informational meetings on various proposals being considered, most of those meetings quickly deteriorated into near violent shouting matches between the political opponents. How can anyone sponsor a debate when the opposing parties aren't listening to one another, not talikng to one another, and often simply shouting soundbites provided by political operatives?

As far as parliamentary shenanigans are concerned, I don't think it's even been suggested, let alone alleged, that any lobbyists ever met with the POTUS. Congress drafted and passed the bill. If the POTUS was complicit, it was because he failed to veto what seems to have turned out to be a faulty bill in lots of ways.

Again, we're assigning way too much of the credit and/or criticism for ObamaCare to the President, who had very little to do with the ultimate drafting of the legislation.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

When attempts were made to have informational meetings on various proposals being considered, most of those meetings quickly deteriorated into near violent shouting matches between the political opponents. How can anyone sponsor a debate when the opposing parties aren't listening to one another, not talikng to one another, and often simply shouting soundbites provided by political operatives?

As far as legislative shenanigans are concerned, I din't think it's even been suggested, let alone alleged, that any lobbyists ever met wigh the POTUS. Congress drafted and passed the bill. If the POTUS was complicit, it was because he failed to veto what seems to have turned out to be a faulty bill in lots of ways.

Again, we're assigning way too much of the credit and/or criticism for ObamaCare to the President, who had very little to do with the ultimate drafting of the legislation.

I never saw those meeting he promised...I watch CSPAN all the time and still never saw it. I did see the meeting your are referring to..the so called "town hall" meeting which we now find were bogus, and filled with misinfomation. ON BOTH SIDES BY THE WAY, but one side was not supposed to know anything.

Listen I am not defending any Republicans here, but getting tired of the same drumbeat which has no basis in fact. He promised public hearings, which in themselves would have lent to civil discussions and should have included not only legislators but those in the field so the american people could see what was going on with such a very expansive and expensive program.

YOU ARE CORRECT, that the President had no much to do with the drafting.on that I agree, which to me is a pretty serious default of his presidential respondibilities. We are not talking about passing something to approve a park bench here.

My backroom deal reference was not dealing with lobbyists...recall how he got the senator from LA to vote for it ?????? And he had to do that with even Democrats.

If I missed a shouting match on public tv about the CREATION of this bill, please correct me..please. If I missed inclusion of but a very few in the CRAFTING of this bill, please let me know

If the law is overturned by the Supreme Court, the country will be left with...

• 40 million people or so, about 15% of the population, without any healthcare insurance, relying on hospital emergency rooms for all their healthcare needs.

• The primary insurer of the majority of the population, all those except those insured by Medicare, will be private health insurance companies. Analysis has indicated that the additional costs of private insurance compared to Medicare is about 30% higher (the additional administrative expenses plus profits that private insurers have compared to Medicare).

• The unsustainable growth of healthcare expenses as a percentage of GDP will continue unabated. (It isn't clear whether ObamaCare would have reduced such costs either, although the GAO has scored some savings.)

• It is unlikely that the ideologically split Congress could ever agree on any sort of plan to "bend the healthcare cost curve", provide health insurance to those who will be uninsured, or make any of the obviously needed changes to the Medicare/Medicaid enrtitlement programs.

What a mess. It's altogether uncertain whether ObamaCare would have provided any kind of improvement to the overall healthcare problems faced by the country. But if it's overturned by the Supreme Court, the health of our population will continue to lag that of many other developed countries and what we spend for healthcare will still be a multiple of double or even more than the next most expensive country. And we will be left with a Congress who have demonstrated that they are not inclined to legislate any comprehensive changes that would address the commonly agreed-upon problems.

Like I said, what a mess we will leave coming generations of Americans.

I find it interesting the judges complained they could not do the "bill" justice since it was so long and the time required to read and understand what the :bill" states and it's impacts.

Doesn't that sorta sound like what most even semi intelligent people would conclude. That obviously excludes whip cracker (then) Nancy Pelosi and Scary Harry and the rest of congress.

It certainly underscores the fact that political value/need far out weighs ANYTHING else. Consistently irresponsible representation (I hate using the word representation as it does not play any part in their priorities).

btk

Along with what BTK observed above, I found it interesting that during the recently concluded oral arguments regarding the appeal by several states to overturn the ObamaCare bill, one of the justices commented, "...you don't expect us to read all 2,700 pages of this bill, do you?"

Court watchers have opined that none of the justices has either the knowledge or the inclination to consider either the financial implications, the impact on the healthcare industry, or the well-being of the U.S. population in making their decision. Their role, as described by Court watchers, is to adjudicate the appropriateness of lower court decisions, based on the law. And to adjudicate lower court decisions based on the constitutionality of the issues being argued. What they don't do is issue judgements based on reason or fairness or the effect on people.

So what do we have here? One of the most important pieces of legislation in decades was cobbled together from language drafted by partisan politicians and a variety of special interest lobbyists, passed by Congress, almost all of whom admitted voting on it without reading its contents. Now the legality of the bill will be determined by a Supreme Court who also admits that they will not read the bill in its entirety, and who almost certainly wouldn't understand the implications of the legislation even if they did.

Do you really think this is what the framers of the Consitution had in mind when they created our system of government? How do we get out of this mess?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Along with what BTK observed above, I found it interesting that during the recently concluded oral arguments regarding the appeal by several states to overturn the ObamaCare bill, one of the justices commented, "...you don't expect us to read all 2,700 pages of this bill, do you?"

Court watchers have opined that none of the justices has either the knowledge or the inclination to consider either the financial implications, the impact on the healthcare industry, or the well-being of the U.S. population in making their decision. Their role, as described by Court watchers, is to adjudicate the appropriateness of lower court decisions, based on the law. And to adjudicate lower court decisions based on the constitutionality of the issues being argued. What they don't do is issue judgements based on reason or fairness or the effect on people.

So what do we have here? One of the most important pieces of legislation in decades was cobbled together from language drafted by partisan politicians and a variety of special interest lobbyists, passed by Congress, almost all of whom admitted voting on it without reading its contents. Now the legality of the bill will be determined by a Supreme Court who also admits that they will not read the bill in its entirety, and who almost certainly wouldn't understand the implications of the legislation even if they did.

Do you really think this is what the framers of the Consitution had in mind when they created our system of government? How do we get out of this mess?

I am going to try very hard to get back on this question of yours, because I honestly was looking to the public debate on healthcare that we never had.

I still think that is what we need to start with. My first reaction is a senate hearing, but then we have to by definition involve actual senators and here we go...they seem to ALWAYS play to the cameras.

There has got to be a way to allow all americans to hear all sides of this, NOT POLITICAL sides by the way. We really need an open frank discussion of this issue.

Your question is a good one....sometimes I actually look for solutions despite what I am sure you think....and you offer quite a challenge.

PS...A small defense of Scalia and I still think he was talking tongue in cheek...but we have a bill written in secret and purposedly made intricate and confusing by people who ignored the constitution and costs of health care. Based on its conception and birth, I do understand his comments and if he does read it...will he be the first in government to do that ?

another, for lack of a better term, faction within what ever number of uninsured is stated, there is a significant number who can afford health care insurance and at the stage of their life they find themselves current....CHOOSE.... to NOT invest in health care coverage.

We have a couple of small businesses in the family....12 to 35 employees. Recently the kids offered to create a group for insurance coverage. The proposal to the employees was the owners ("the kids") would pay 50% of the premium and the employee would pay the other 50%...a pretty good deal in today's environment.

What would you guess acceptance VS rejection? I was stunned....100% REJECTION. They said first of all they were in no way going to put that kind of money out of their pay check for health insurance. They further stated if the owners had that much money to throw around just give the amount of the premium to them in a pay increase.

100% said they had other priorities for their money and health care was not one. Over half of them are married and no, their spouses did not have insurance either!!!

I for one have no sympathy, apathy, concern or care about those uninsured that do not help themselves. And I am afraid that happens to be a very large percent of what ever the total uninsured is.

It is a fabricated political move....NOTHING MORE!!! Yes there are some very legitimate needy folks out there. Hopefully there are alternatives for them as this has been going on for years. It has just in recent years become a political football.

Doesn't one wonder why Hillary Clinton gave up on her push for insurance for everybody? She was obviously not as politically hardened as Obama.

I have been soured, I look for it to be killed in total.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

another, for lack of a better term, faction within what ever number of uninsured is stated, there is a significant number who can afford health care insurance and at the stage of their life they find themselves current....CHOOSE.... to NOT invest in health care coverage.

We have a couple of small businesses in the family....12 to 35 employees. Recently the kids offered to create a group for insurance coverage. The proposal to the employees was the owners ("the kids") would pay 50% of the premium and the employee would pay the other 50%...a pretty good deal in today's environment.

What would you guess acceptance VS rejection? I was stunned....100% REJECTION. They said first of all they were in no way going to put that kind of money out of their pay check for health insurance. They further stated if the owners had that much money to throw around just give the amount of the premium to them in a pay increase.

100% said they had other priorities for their money and health care was not one. Over half of them are married and no, their spouses did not have insurance either!!!

I for one have no sympathy, apathy, concern or care about those uninsured that do not help themselves. And I am afraid that happens to be a very large percent of what ever the total uninsured is.

It is a fabricated political move....NOTHING MORE!!! Yes there are some very legitimate needy folks out there. Hopefully there are alternatives for them as this has been going on for years. It has just in recent years become a political football.

Doesn't one wonder why Hillary Clinton gave up on her push for insurance for everybody? She was obviously not as politically hardened as Obama.

I have been soured, I look for it to be killed in total.

btk

BTK....I am going to put this into a question. I feel the same as you...

Was not the emphasis SUPPOSED TO BE HEALTH COSTS ? Not what we got but a way to reduce COST of health care ?

yes it was. Remember the half billion dollars of Medicare fraud that was assumed to be eliminated to cover the costs.

How can they keep a straight face. Just recently a super committee working for weeks to find a specified amount of spending reductions to reduce the deficit. How did the super folks do? They failed. Not even a single suggestion to have shot down. An out and out failure, with very little coverage or penalty or even a so what.

So does Obama think we the people are dumb enough to buy his cost reduction assumptions. I said it before and I will say it again...he absolutely feels he has addressed an issue when he merely talks about it....then and there...for that moment in time....NOTHING MORE!!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

yes it was. Remember the half billion dollars of Medicare fraud that was assumed to be eliminated to cover the costs.

How can they keep a straight face. Just recently a super committee working for weeks to find a specified amount of spending reductions to reduce the deficit. How did the super folks do? They failed. Not even a single suggestion to have shot down. An out and out failure, with very little coverage or penalty or even a so what.

So does Obama think we the people are dumb enough to buy his cost reduction assumptions. I said it before and I will say it again...he absolutely feels he has addressed an issue when he merely talks about it....then and there...for that moment in time....NOTHING MORE!!!

btk

I have been so frustrated with this entire thing.....I was so sure that what Obama said was look at and have hearings on HEALTH COSTS. Anything else, to me were simply a few things we may be able to address but HEALTH COSTS was the thrust.

This seems to be lost on all those folks who adore at Obama's altar...he didnt even get close to what he said he would do. Of course I have said enough about taking it secret but maybe we know why.

I actually got caught up in his rhetoric...an open and very clear discussion of HEALTH COSTS on CSPAN.....I think Health costs are a HUGE problem, but he really never even did anything about it and crowned himself a savior as with his followers. I consider Obama to be scary !

....and how many of those people who rejected a 50% discount on insurance premiums will be able to pay the hospital bills when they so much as sprain an ankle? How much preventative care will they skip because they have more important things than seeing a doctor? And how much more will they pay later on in life because something that was pitifully easy to treat when they were young has become a problem now?

America. Home of the corporate "We don't think past the next quarter's numbers" thinking - now in handy "civilian"-sized packaging!

Originally Posted by billethkid

another, for lack of a better term, faction within what ever number of uninsured is stated, there is a significant number who can afford health care insurance and at the stage of their life they find themselves current....CHOOSE.... to NOT invest in health care coverage.

We have a couple of small businesses in the family....12 to 35 employees. Recently the kids offered to create a group for insurance coverage. The proposal to the employees was the owners ("the kids") would pay 50% of the premium and the employee would pay the other 50%...a pretty good deal in today's environment.

What would you guess acceptance VS rejection? I was stunned....100% REJECTION. They said first of all they were in no way going to put that kind of money out of their pay check for health insurance. They further stated if the owners had that much money to throw around just give the amount of the premium to them in a pay increase.

100% said they had other priorities for their money and health care was not one. Over half of them are married and no, their spouses did not have insurance either!!!

I for one have no sympathy, apathy, concern or care about those uninsured that do not help themselves. And I am afraid that happens to be a very large percent of what ever the total uninsured is.

It is a fabricated political move....NOTHING MORE!!! Yes there are some very legitimate needy folks out there. Hopefully there are alternatives for them as this has been going on for years. It has just in recent years become a political football.

Doesn't one wonder why Hillary Clinton gave up on her push for insurance for everybody? She was obviously not as politically hardened as Obama.

I have been soured, I look for it to be killed in total.

btk

I thought that the principal reason for the law mandating that everyone have insurance was to improve the longterm health of the country by providing regular access to care, thereby reducing healthcare costs.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I have been so frustrated with this entire thing.....I was so sure that what Obama said was look at and have hearings on HEALTH COSTS. Anything else, to me were simply a few things we may be able to address but HEALTH COSTS was the thrust.

This seems to be lost on all those folks who adore at Obama's altar...he didnt even get close to what he said he would do. Of course I have said enough about taking it secret but maybe we know why.

I actually got caught up in his rhetoric...an open and very clear discussion of HEALTH COSTS on CSPAN.....I think Health costs are a HUGE problem, but he really never even did anything about it and crowned himself a savior as with his followers. I consider Obama to be scary !

If there's blame to be laid on, Bucco, it's mostly on the partisan members of Congress who responded to their special interest lobbyists by inserting hundreds of amendments and pages of content benefitting virtually every participant in the healthcare industry. That's why, as reported after the bill was passed, "champagne corks were popping on K Street".

If the POTUS is to be blamed, it's for not vetoing what had become a bloated, expensive, special interest benefit-laden Rube Goldberg of a bill. But after having Congress take 14 months to create something that contained several of the elements he wanted, he wasn't about to throw the baby out with the bath water. If the bill had been vetoed, who would have any confidence that Congress would fix the faults that justified the veto?

I'd argue there was little chance of that happening. Remember the super committee? So while I think the POTUS should share the blame by not vetoing the bill, I understand why he didn't.