-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
-
The Wheels Come Off Obamacare
April 15, 2013 | 159 comments
The Right Prescription
Obamacare Can’t Be Served À La Carte
If the Supreme Court can’t stomach the mandate, the whole unpalatable mess must be tossed.
Two years ago, when the chefs of the Democrat party emerged from the legislative kitchen with that noisome combination of noxious ingredients ironically titled the “Affordable Care Act,” they made it clear that it was meant to be served prix fixe. And, when the Republicans and a large percentage of voters recoiled at some of the offered fare, the offended congressional cooks haughtily informed us that we were getting a set menu. They were particularly intransigent on the subject of the individual mandate. No matter how many times we expressed our displeasure with that disgusting course, in public demonstrations and at the ballot box, they insisted it was absolutely essential to the table d’hôte.
We were further assured that a true appreciation of Obamacare and its mandate would come with time. It was an acquired taste, they told us, that we would eventually learn to love. Much to the chagrin of congressional Democrats and the White House, however, the mandate has instead turned out to be something of an emetic. It proved so nauseating to the electorate that the Democrats were hurled from their recently reacquired House majority in November of 2010, and it could cause “reform” to be regurgitated from our body of laws by the Supreme Court this summer. The chances that the Court can stomach the mandate are not good and, if that pungent provision is essential, the whole nauseating mess must be tossed.
Strangely, however, the very people who have for two years insisted that the mandate was the essential ingredient that made Obamacare palatable have changed their minds. They claim to have reexamined the recipe and discovered a way serve ACA à la carte. The government lawyers tasked with defending Obamacare have filed a brief with the Court saying the law can still work in the absence of the mandate. They now claim it can be safely severed if a couple of other provisions are also removed. Specifically, only the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions are not severable from the mandate according to the latest fallback position adopted by the Department of Justice.
The DOJ is not alone in its sudden discovery that the law will work without the mandate. Most of Obamacare’s advocates have had similar epiphanies. And, to justify their brazen flip-flops, many have twisted themselves into interesting rhetorical knots. Doctors Samuel Sessions and Allan Detsky, for example, offer this hilarious analysis: “Arguing that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause requires taking the position that it is ‘essential’ to the statutory scheme, whereas arguing that it is severable dictates the seemingly opposite position that the ACA is ‘capable of functioning without it.’ Politically, making both arguments may be awkward.… Legally, however, the positions are consistent.”
These cynical sawbones argue that the mandate is “completely severable,” and that its removal doesn’t even require the extractions proposed by the DOJ. This is nonsense, of course. As virtually all of Obamacare’s proponents insisted before they realized there was a real chance the Court would strike it down, the mandate is such an integral component of ACA that “reform” cannot be digested without it. This is certainly the position the Democrats took when they rammed the law down our throats. As Mario Loyola, Richard Epstein, and Ilya Shapiro put it in the American Interest, “It was for that reason that the law’s proponents rejected every effort to remove the mandate from the law in committee vote after committee vote.”
Loyola, Epstein, and Shapiro, who have filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case, write that even removal of the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions from the law will not justify severing the mandate. They hold that the “minimum coverage provision,” as ACA’s advocates refer to it, is inextricably connected to the law’s so-called insurance reforms, Medicaid expansion, and premium subsidies. “The better the Court understands the vital interrelation of those provisions with the mandate in the original legislative design, the clearer it will be that these core provisions are wholly interwoven with the mandate and must be struck down with it.”
They ominously add that “implementing those other core provisions without the mandate is likely to result in a financial meltdown. The reason lies in the unyielding economics of health insurance.” Essentially, the law’s various provisions remove all incentives for healthy people to purchase coverage and make it illegal for insurance companies to refuse coverage to the seriously ill. Without the individual mandate, therefore, this will lead to an “adverse selection spiral” that will cause the health insurance industry to implode: “In the end, the only people who enroll are those with known medical conditions, such that premiums approach the actual cost of health care, and the insurance industry collapses.”
This is by no means a conjectural argument. Experiments with similarly designed health care “reform” laws have been conducted in a variety of states, including New Hampshire, Kentucky, Vermont, Washington, New Jersey, Maine, New , and Massachusetts. The last, like all the rest, has failed even with a mandate that was meant to deal with adverse selection problem. It simply isn’t possible to alter the laws of economics with state or federal legislation. It is possible, however, to make a bad law even worse. And that is what will happen if the Supreme Court attempts to convert the table d’hôte cooked up by Congress into an à la carte menu. As its proponents told us when they force fed Obamacare to us in 2010, it is a set menu.
The Court will hear oral arguments pursuant to severability on Wednesday, and the opponents of Obamacare will have exactly thirty minutes to convince the justices that the original position of Congress was that Obamacare was meant to be served prix fixe. If the Supremes find the individual mandate unpalatable, the Constitution, the laws of economics and plain common sense demand that they send whole inedible mess back to the Kitchen.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/26/obamacare-cant-be-served-la-ca
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dec| 3.26.12 @ 7:43AM
All that notwithstanding, what do US (and Barack's) "folks" do after Elena Kagan illegally refuses to recuse herself and casts the decisive vote to kick the Constitution to the curb once and for all?
numbatdog| 3.26.12 @ 9:17AM
Nothing. The answer is nothing.
We have seen brazen contempt, twisting or just ignoring of the law for three years. By doing nothing till now, we have given our tacit approval for this regimes open flouting of what we once regarded as sacroscent rules.
Trouble is, once authority starts to do this, it never stops.
RCV| 3.26.12 @ 6:17PM
No grounds for her to disqualify herself, as Chief Justice Roberts has confirmed.
Lon Mead| 3.27.12 @ 7:15AM
And it seems that several questions she's asked the Solicitor General have actually served to poke holes in the government's position. Verrilli is not having a good time of it, and he's not getting any slack from her that I've heard.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.26.12 @ 8:05AM
The mandate is just one of the atrocities of ObamaCare. But is central to the conversation since it is easily understood and clearly offensive to the average person.
Methinks that on a more grand scale, the IPAB and continual limitations over time of choice is more offensive since it strikes directly at our "Unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty." As insurace companies go the way of the dodo bird, everyone will be subject to an unelected, unaccountable board of 15 to decide if you live or die. That is the antithesis of our Constitution.
And from an economic point of view, Mr. Catron is absolutely correct. It will bankrupt the country and deliver us to socialism. But wasn't that what it was intended to do? Barry and Nancy our Lords, and we shall be broken on the wheel for insolence for even a disrespectful glance.
richard ryan| 3.26.12 @ 9:04AM
"everyone will be subjected to an unelected, unaccountable board...."
Not everyone, Von M., not everyone. The Washington elites will not be waiting in line getting coughed on trying desperately to get an appointment.
"TAKE A NUMBER PLEASE!" said the gum snapping, bitter, disinterested government employee behind the desk.
"I'm sorry, I need your health services ID card and income statement...."
oldfart| 3.26.12 @ 10:09AM
Richard - I agree - what is not often mentioned that exemptions are allowed under the law. Ms. Botix (Nancy P.) has made sure that all of her contributors have been exempted. As well as the major unions.
So who will be left to pay the bill for everyone else?
The left is very good with coming up with ideas and wondering how to pay for it later.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.26.12 @ 10:38AM
Richard and Oldfart, I agree 110%. That is why I referenced Lords and serfs. That was the relationship of the ruling versus the country class in Continental Europe priorto a firestorm of revolutions from 1760-1800.
Tocqueville discussed that once the Industrial Revolution occurred, the country class no longer needed the Monarchy and Nobles, so when they continued to charge them quitrents, tallies and other taxes, it boiled over to violence.
This is what the so called "progressives" have in mind for us again. And it actually regressive by some 300 years plus.
RJ| 3.26.12 @ 11:06PM
Well Said.
Andrew Allan| 3.26.12 @ 9:44AM
There's nothing the mandate does that couldn't be done with taxes. Mandate forces you to buy insurance. Government can FORCE you to pay a tax already...and they can buy the insurance FOR you.
But I think the better solution would be much more grand. Because you see, no matter who pays for today's healthcare, it's just too dang expensive and getting more expensive by the day because healthcare corporations have a monopoly.
So here's my grandiose plan to replace Obamacare: Take our existing system of VA hospitals and give them a Trillion Dollar Booster Shot...making healthcare free and top-of-the-line for all veterans at those facilities. Badabing, you instantly have more capacity in the for-disgracefully high-profit hospitals...making them compete for what patients are left.
Shadow| 3.26.12 @ 10:04AM
Ah, another big government solution for all us po' helpess little sheep. No! I think not.
Government interference is the reason the cost is rising. Allow the free market to work and America will work again. If not, goodbye freedom, prosperity, and good health care.
Mender| 3.26.12 @ 12:23PM
See my post on the UK's NHS below. The heresy Catron doesn't want you to think about is that 'government solutions' in other countries produce results at least comparable to the US's-and often either better or cheaper.
richard ryan| 3.26.12 @ 10:57AM
Who are these healthcare corporations that have a monopoly Andrew? Could you be referring to BCBS? United Healthcare? If you are, I tend to agree that they are close to a monopoly in some areas. Why is that? I think the answer is simple. The GOVERNMENT creates this situation when they will not allow me to purchase a health care product from another state. The GOVERNMENT creates this situation when they create a system of mandates and regulations that each company must comply with in order to offer me a product. That limits the number of companies competing for my health care dollar. That brings us yet closer to a monopoly.
What I would really like to see is a market system which would allow me to buy the type of product that suits me best. I don't want coverage for psychiatric care, obstetrical care, or substance abuse care. I would like a catastrophic coverage policy that will result in lower premiums, more judicious use of doctors and medicines, and CHOICE.
Now, if you really would like to address the COST issue, lets examine the true monopoly the federal government has with the seniors, poor, and disabled. Then we can really talk savings, without losing coverage or quality.
Pecos Pete| 3.26.12 @ 11:42AM
Richard: Agreed. Well said!
martin j smith| 3.26.12 @ 10:25AM
SCOTUS and our entire system are on trial on this case because this legislation is so unpopular with the voters. And the major reason is that Obamacare is the nail in the coffin of our known way of life. The consequences of upholding Obamacare are ones that I care not to speculate on but they will be very bad.
Harry the Horrible| 3.26.12 @ 10:45AM
I thought there was something specifically in the ObamaCare that specifically prevented "severing" ANY provisions from the law? It was an "all-or-nothing" set up.
And I'm kinda hoping for "nothing."
DonB| 3.26.12 @ 10:56AM
Laws are automatically non-severable, there has to be a severability clause added. Laws are always "all-or-nothing" unless Congress chooses otherwise.
WM| 3.26.12 @ 2:15PM
Severability clauses are automatically added to legislation nowadays. In the case of Obamacare, it was specifically removed. The Democrats told their leftist base that the legislation could not be done piecemeal because each part depended on the whole.
datameister| 3.26.12 @ 2:14PM
In the particular case of ACA, those who drafted it left out a commonly inserted 'boilerplate' clause that is included in virtually all legislation proposed/passed. This clause specifies "severability", and is typically labeled as such, and is one of the first few sections of any legislation document.
Basically, that "severability" clause states that, should some parts of the legislation be found illegal or unconstitutional, the remainder of the legislation shall remain.
Since our Dear Leaders' minions who drafted this 2,000 page Trojan Horse neglected (intentially or or lazily) to include this boilerplate section, what it means specifically as it relates to ACA is that should any part of the law be found unconstitutional or illegal, the law in its complete form as passed, is no longer valid and therefore has to be discharged.
Since there is no clause in ACA to reference, check out the Dodd-Frank bill as a comparative document (yet another Trojan Horse) to find one. In the Table of Contents, you will find a listing early on labeled, "Severability". You can read the instruction there, that is NOT there in ACA.
DonB| 3.26.12 @ 10:52AM
The severability of the individual mandate should not be at issue. Congress discussed adding a severability clause and decided against it. The bill as written, voted on, and signed into law contains no such clause. If the Supreme Court now decides to sever, they are in fact changing what Congress voted on. Their function is to only decide on the constitutionality, not how well the law will work.
RJ| 3.26.12 @ 1:09PM
Agree, Don. That's a major issue and it makes sense that there was no severability clause - the mandate is the keystone to the act. The act is dependent upon it.
I find it surprisingly that the court is hearing the case this late in the term and wonder if the justices can create an opinion and have it agreed upon by a majority of the justices by mid June. I think it possible that the court will hold it over for the next term so that their ruling does not impact the Presidential election. It seems hard to deny Randy Barnett's position that if the government can mandate each person to buy health insurance, there is no limit to what our federal government of few and enumerated powers can to do.
WM| 3.26.12 @ 2:17PM
Courts use the legislative-intent test. If Congress simply forgot to add it, the Court would treat it as severable.
In this case, legislative intent was clear. The authors had no intention of making them severable.
Vic| 3.26.12 @ 11:14AM
The court should rule the entire healthcare law unconstitutional and not just the mandate. That would give Obama some room to maneuver the verdict. Given the conservative majority led by Roberts and the ubiquitous Scalia I have no doubt in that. They surely wont tolerate these free lunches for the meek & lazy and cast their vote for personal responsibility!
Mimi| 3.26.12 @ 12:08PM
Jonathan Turley was on C-Span this morning and said the CRUX of the matter is Federalism and whether it will be contained !
In my opinion if the mandate is un-constitutional the whole thing GOES . As it should!
If Turley is right.... each state will take care and provide for health -care of its citizens...each in their own way and needs and timing for changes.
Someone should make a movie of how the Dems served this up to America....To rob Americans of their very basic rights..starring A Nanfrom San Fran look-alike as the VILLAIN..showing the vicious tactics the Real one used on the American people.
The doings now are late in coming a DAM has been holding back the Economy of not just us, but the WORLD.....When this whole thing is gone, The flood of WEALTH and PROSPERITY will be historic.
I'm thinking a unanimous decision of 8-0 with Kagan recusing herself..( telling).
Mender| 3.26.12 @ 12:21PM
OK, I have completely had it with all this bullsh*t from people with a stake in the system as it stands. (Catron is a 'a health care revenue cycle expert' so that should tell you he knows how to game the system.) I grew up in London so I know the truth of this. The Brits have a system which is completely Stalinist. Hospitals are government property at the smallest arm's length. Doctors are government employees for most of their work. (They're free to go private if they can find work that way.) It's all paid out of general taxation. Government committees decide whether to let you have drugs on the healthcare plan based on how much they cost per year of extra life they give you. Vaccines are almost compulsory and they can chase up on you if you don't let your kids have them. Put in place in a weak economy? The UK health system was put in place immediately after the second world war when many hospitals were in ruins. Sounds like a recipe for inefficiency, according to doctrine. But the result? Brits spend less than half (LESS THAN HALF) as much on healthcare and live slightly longer than Americans. Only 15% have any kind of treatment insurance. Yes, it's not perfect and some of the provisions are criticized as insufficient, but conservatism means 'going with what works' not being taken for a ride. Obama's plan isn't great, but that doesn't mean something hasn't got to change.
Shadow| 3.26.12 @ 1:13PM
Conservatism means "conservative government," government only where The Constitution allows it. The purpose of this legislation was and is to allow government to gain more control of every detail of our lives.
If the objective of the socialists was only to insure health care for all, there would be government run clinics for the poor at a significantly lower cost to taxpayers. Those who can afford insurance would purchase it at a significantly lower cost because medical costs would not be increased to make up for shortfalls created by government limits on payment. The idea that government can run our health care system in even an adequate way is preposterous. Corruption, fraud, sloth, negligence, hate and malpractice are rampant in those who work in government. They are not accountable (by law) for their actions. The proof of certain failure is evident in the fact they are not going to suffer under the same system.
Mender| 3.26.12 @ 1:42PM
Like I said, I'm not saying that Obama's plan is a good idea-it's not, it's a classic compromise mess. Effectively it's handing insurers a monopoly and an expanded market in return for them dropping their prices for the poorest. But the important thing to realise is that the current system is a ridiculous cartel.
"Corruption, fraud, sloth, negligence, hate and malpractice are rampant in those who work in government."
No disagreement on this. Apparently the US government can't do the kind of hardball negotiation with providers Canada, Australia and New Zealand can do in their sleep. Sigh.
And remember the potential for efficiency a state-run system can create, too. Think about these two examples:
Government system: government collects very detailed healthcare statistics from every hospital including records of machine depreciation and repair rates, looks at them and what people are prepared in tax, then publishes guidelines to hospitals on ratio of patients to what equipment their area can have, and the circumstances in which they can apply for an exception. All the people involved are paid about what a teacher gets.
Private system: Hospitals and insurance companies keep those figures private. Your local hospital wonders if it can make money on having a ___ scanner. Hospital hires [health care revenue cycle expert] on $1000 a day. HCRCE contacts his buddies who have recently retired from running other hospitals, and don't really know either. They tell him what they know. They can only give a rough idea about depreciation because overall statistics are the manufacturer's little secret, and since the failure rate per year for the first five years is about 1 in 30 so he has to call 30 people to have a hope of being in the ballpark of what to allow for. HCRCE hands in a report four weeks later containing advice with about a 65% chance of being right. One in three times the hospital gets it wrong and passes the money onto consumers for the costs of other procedures.
Not that I'm saying that's what this particular HCRCE does exactly, but you see how the private sector can generate plenty of waste left to itself.
Shadow| 3.26.12 @ 4:24PM
I do appreciate your discussion and the problems you present are real. I believe they contribute much less to the costs of healthcare than government payment limitations and unnecessary requirements. Government Should not be part of the medical profession except in regulation of quality and licensing.
The legal profession has contributed to the cost increases probably as much as government. They are greedy varmints who pursue every excuse for litigation they can find, driving up liability insurance costs that are unbelievable. Torte reform would be a great relief for all struggling to meet costs.
WM| 3.26.12 @ 2:21PM
We spend more in America than in Britain because:
1. We are wealthier. If you would like to be wealthier, try free markets.
2. Britain has price controls. Their nominal payments are less because the law mandates they be less. But Britons are getting the same value for the same drug. In other words, you are parasites off Americans, who have to pay the price necessary to ensure companies can continue to function.
Jodi| 3.26.12 @ 12:34PM
Please be an educated voter. Visit this new fact checking website:
www.VoteFacts.org
kwan| 3.26.12 @ 12:55PM
The real purpose of ObamaCare is to condition the populace into being manipulated by an all-powerful central government. Once the electorate sees what a total disaster this ObamaCare really is the Democrat Party will have as much political clout as the "Free Charlie Manson Now Party". Obama's first three years in office have been all about the "fundamental transformation" of the United States into a Totalitarian Socialist State. Only the mentally deranged would vote to give Obama another 4 years in office but pollsters are telling us that 40+ percent of the electorate want Obama to complete his mission and turn the land of the free into Venezuela. These mindless morons have evidently been lobotomized by the government schools, mainstream media, Hollywood buffoons, overindulgence in brain-annihilation drugs, and the promise of mo gub-a-mint cheeese by the pied pipers of the left.
Shadow| 3.26.12 @ 1:14PM
Exactly!
Paul in Colorado| 3.26.12 @ 2:04PM
The real crisis comes later this summer, when the administration ignores the court's ruling and presses on with implimentation.
The Bruce| 3.26.12 @ 4:42PM
I was thinking the same thing. And he wouldn't have to worry about being reelected if he declared martial law. It sounds crazy, but I wouldn't put it past him.
RJ| 3.26.12 @ 10:55PM
I have seen the law become broader and more vague over the last 30 years. It is much more subjective and as such, it more often falls within the discretion of regulators, prosecutors and judges. This trend is by design, because our government wants to have the power and flexibility to deal with whatever may come up in the future. A clear set of laws restricts its power to act. To that extent we have become a lawless society.
Also, there has been an increasing trend for government officials to ignore established law when it doesn't suit their interests. It didn't start with Obama, but his administration, like so many things, has made a bad situation worse.
Should a President falsely declare martial law to preserve power, the ultimate question is not whether it is legal, under some strained theory of executive authority. The most important question is will any such declaration be followed by other government officials as well as the people.
Ralph Gizzip| 3.26.12 @ 2:23PM
"If the Supreme Court can't stomach the mandate, the whole unpalatable mess must be tossed."
That's what we're hoping.
Playrighter| 3.26.12 @ 2:34PM
Housekeeping: The next to the last paragraph lists:
"Washington, New Jersey, Maine, New , and Massachusetts"...
York, Mexico, Hampshire, ??Who New??
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 2:42PM
The severability clause mentioned above can be easily dismissed with the argument about all the waivers given to those FRIENDLY to the current administration.
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 2:43PM
If the severability clause was truly etched in stone then there would be no waivers in other words. The court will decide before the election in November.
Kingofthenet| 3.26.12 @ 3:01PM
If the Federal Govt. has a right to regulate 'Interstate Commerce' this Law will stand, if not it will be abolished, simple as that.
HudsonValleyWest| 3.26.12 @ 3:10PM
Sorry, it's not that "simple." The Constitution gives the federal government the expressed power to regulate interstate commerce. The issue is whether that power extends to forcing people to buy a product. If that's in fact a power the government has, what next? We bail out GM with taxpayer money and the government requires all of us to own GM cars? The government runs health care, and people who eat sugar, beef, fill-in-the-blank, drive up the cost of health care, so the government requires us all to become vegetarians? The possibilities are endless. That's why it's not simple and why Obamacare cannot be allowed to stand.
Kingofthenet| 3.26.12 @ 3:25PM
Your car doesn't have seat-belts and Airbags, here is a hint Buddy the Govt. FORCED you to buy them.
Warrior | 3.26.12 @ 4:48PM
You don't have to buy a car.
HudsonValleyWest| 3.26.12 @ 6:34PM
Exactly.
Sam K.| 4.5.12 @ 4:47PM
You trippin' He was born with a driver's license and a shiny new car with large airbags.
HudsonValleyWest| 3.26.12 @ 3:05PM
As someone who is unalterably opposed to every aspect of Obamacare, I'm certainly praying the Supremes will do the right thing and deal this monstrosity a big setback, if not a death blow. However, I am not hopeful this case will be decided the way I want it to be. In that event, I'm hoping the court's decision will motivate all the people who oppose it to go to the polls and vote out Obama and all the rest of the imbeciles who put this together and voted for it. The vast majority of the people are opposed to Obamacare. Remember when this was being debated and all the empty suits and skirts in Congress went back to their districts? They all got an earful and many were voted out. The court's ruling is due in July or August and, if it goes the wrong way, it may be the single galvanizing issue that will get these idiots out of office and keep liberals out for a long time. People will understand that even if the Supreme Court finds the whole of Obamacare is constitutional, there's nothing that prevents it from being repealed next year with a whole new government, president, House and Senate, in place. Then we will focus on draining the swamp that is the judicial branch, starting with the supreme court and working our way down. themselves.
Kingofthenet| 3.26.12 @ 3:26PM
Why do you want ME to pay for the uninsured at Emergency Rooms, why do you LOVE Free-Loaders so much?
HudsonValleyWest| 3.26.12 @ 6:27PM
You're already paying, friend. If Obamacare goes through you'll be subsidizing EVERYONE, as we all will.
cicero| 3.26.12 @ 3:26PM
We really do not have to worry wondering whether the insurance industry will implode under Obamacare. For a certainty, it will. Under the bill, the insurance industry will have to take all comers. The premiums will be so high, that no one in their right mind will pay them. That will force everyone onto the government program. At that point, the private health insurance industry fails to exist. That was the plan all along.
It is just like the trope that you could keep your employer provided plan if you liked it. However, the penalty paid to the government by your employer will be less than what he is paying, or will pay for your private health care. He pays the penalty, and you get government health care. See how neatly that all works out.
Like Nancy P. said ..."Are you kidding?"
Kingofthenet| 3.26.12 @ 3:41PM
The heck with this 'Socialism' I DEMAND to have the RIGHT to be kicked off my insurance if i get sick, or NOT even get a plan if I am already sick.Also I want to pay in increased Premiums and Costs for the MILLIONS who are NOT responsible and don't have insurance, I want to pick up that tab.I am Republican
Warrior | 3.26.12 @ 4:52PM
Health care providers should not be forced to treat those who do not have insurance or a means to pay. Laws create the requirement to treat the uninsured and indigent and now you need bigger and more obtrusive laws to help fix the mess that the previous laws created. Health care is not a right, it is a service.
Sam K.| 4.5.12 @ 4:49PM
"Health care is not a right, it is a service."
Thank you. Exactly. Why do people really not understand this?
Robert| 3.26.12 @ 3:41PM
Hudson, you are assuming there will be an election. Or at least a fair one. Remember Stalin's dictum: It is not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes!
There will be no election in November, if by 'election' you expect it to resemble anything that been held in the past (Chicago excepted!). If it appears obama is headed for a landslide defeat unable to be 'massaged' into victory through Soros' Secretary of State Project, and knowing that our Attorney General is an ideological thug, the Executive Branch has no need to worry about calling martial law (set up last week by obama's executive order) as our October Surprise. Kiss November 6th goodbye!
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 4:15PM
No, the government can't force you to buy air bags in a 1955 Bel Air.
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 4:17PM
There will be an election IF the PEOPLE decide there will be. Whether that will be by violent or non-violent means is anyone's guess. Strength in numbers, survival, or continued subsistence and sustenance at the government sugar teat. The choice is ultimately OURS.
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 4:19PM
Ultimately it is OUR choice to live or die, not Uncle Sam's or Barack Obama's. Otherwise we all aren't really worthy of calling ourselves human; we will all have become plastic, regardless of bone, blood, or plasma.
Steve| 3.26.12 @ 4:40PM
this article is written by a man who does consulting for hospitals. I think that kind of explains his bias. Certainly not in the interest of consumers, rather just another attempt by someone representing corporate interest to confuse the issues. I'm a US citizen who has worked in the UK for 10 years. I can tell you that every country in Europe has a health care system far superior to the US. Corporate interests want you to believe that Europeans have fewer choices and poorer quality of care. Absolutely the opposite. America's health care system is a joke. Ask anyone who lives in Europe
Nite| 3.26.12 @ 7:26PM
If you are referring to the British Healthcare System, then that is a joke. People are helped to die in those hospitals all the time. Women deliver in hallways or elevators because there are no beds. You can't choose your physician and there are much higher cancer deaths than in this country. People come from all over the world for first rate care in this country. If you love that system, then I am sure you are happy to stay there.
Sam K.| 4.5.12 @ 4:34PM
Why would I ask anyone who lives in Europe what they think of American health care? It is a subject they (and you) obviously know nothing about and an opinion they (and you) are not qualified to have. Furthermore, if you read through the article, why did you fail to comprehend that this so called AHCA is not at all comparable to the system you are comparing it to. The article break down for you what this law will do to our tax system and all the ways in which it will turn what is already a bureaucratic mess into a bureaucratic nightmare? Did you just ignore that part? Is that comparable to NHS or other European systems? I think it is not. Are yiu sure you understand what you actually commenting on?
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 4:46PM
And I can tell you that there is personal testimony from many in the UK alone that proves you wrong!
Kingofthenet| 3.26.12 @ 6:23PM
You Republicans are going to lose and i'll tell you why.President Obama didn't create this Law by himself, the ENTIRE Legislative and Executive branch did.Congress created the bill, voted on it and sent it to the President who signed it.That's pretty much EVERYONE who can make laws, to strike this down, there has to SPECIFIC language in the Constitution that this violates, if you Believe 100 Senators and and the Entire House, many of who are lawyers would allow a bill to get to the Presidents desk that was totally unconstitutional, your crazy.
Warrior | 3.26.12 @ 6:49PM
Legislative branches also created Jim Crow, McCain/Feingold,etc. In fact the Supreme Court has struck down over 1,300 laws that were declared unconstitutional. Your argument is not rational.
Tiddly| 3.26.12 @ 11:13PM
"Your crazy" what?
Sam K.| 4.5.12 @ 4:43PM
Typical myopic bigoted response. This isn't about whose side wins or loses. Is that all you care about? Btw, there are quite a large number of Independents, Democrats, etc. who are against this law. Why do you assume this is a black/white left/right debate? It is rather overly simplistic yes? I'll give you specific language. The word "regulate" does not mean "dictate" and neither do the words "provide for" mean "to mandate" and I'll leave out the bit about personal sovereignty as it falls under the constitutional right to one's own private property. As for your final line, are you for real? You think the recent laws allowing Americans to be detained without due process to be constitutional? C'mon now. You must be buzzing us for a lark.
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 6:43PM
Here's another example of how ridiculous this "law" is: the government asserts that health care "involves needs that cannot reasonably be anticipated and budgeted for"; when a "heart attack or appendicitis strikes, a person CANNOT postpone a hospital visit in order to save enough money for it". Oh yeah? Wanna bet? People avoid hospitals every day and die every day on their own accord, choice and judgement AND will continue to do so.
somnolence| 3.26.12 @ 6:45PM
Sillier and erroneous still is the argument that the ENTIRE legislative branch voted and supported this. Better check your facts again.
bflat879| 3.26.12 @ 10:16PM
I hope every Democrat in the country believes this because the country wants this repealed and if the Democrats really want to make this a campaign issue, we can be rid of them, once and for all.
Michele San Pietro| 3.29.12 @ 6:02PM
Obama's digusting healthcare program cannot be served anyway.