Health care mandate unconstitutional

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Yeah, for insurance to work, we need premiums from healthy people to subsidize payouts for sick people.  If we have coverage for pre-existing conditions, but coverage isn't mandatory, then how do we avoid a situation where all the healthy people wait until they get sick to buy insurance?

[Adios]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/12/13/exp.nr.deparle.health.care.cnn?hpt=T1

This talks about this exact issue.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.

Severability

If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.

Contract law 101.

the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.

Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.

1.  You can insure your kids until they're 26.

2.  Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.

3.  Removal of catastophic caps.

Nope. Without everybody's money in the pool, #2 goes down the tubes. Bet money on it.

No, you and PMZ are missing one crucial point.

Coverage can't be DENIED for pre-existing conditions.  There is nothing saying how much they can CHARGE for it.

[Adios]

pdf of the decision.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/13/va.healthcare.ruling.pdf?hpt=T1

[Requia ☣]

It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.

Severability

If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.

Contract law 101.

the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.

Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.

1.  You can insure your kids until they're 26.

2.  Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.

3.  Removal of catastophic caps.

#3 in particular would have been a huge help when I was at Teleperformance.  The lifetime payout cap with the employee health plan was 15,000$ 

Of course, TP probably just dropped the health plan altogether in response to the bill, god forbid they actually cover their employees.

[Adios]

$15,000 wouldn't cover shit.

[Durivan]

The Pre-existing conditions bit was already broken and worthless.  They could still charge them more then most people could afford to pay, even with the law.  Healthy people not buying insurance, then getting only when they are sick is not going to be the issue.  The reason young (and usually healthy) people are less likely to have insurance is because heir jobs are less likely to provide it, and they are less likely to be able to afford it on there own.

I'm think this ruling is probably going to stand.  Not because it isn't unconstitutional, because most of the justice's couldn't care less about that.  As Requia said Kagan would let the government do anything, and Roberts and the conservative judges will do what ever the Repubs really want. With that they have to choices, throw out the law they all say they hate, or uphold it and give the Repubs something more to run against, I'd bet on the latter (though I'm more willing to bet this ruling get overturned before that, and the Supreme's refuse to take it up.)

[East Coast Hustle]

It really is funny that a bunch of lawyers forgot the severability clause.

Severability

If any provision in this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been a part of this Agreement. The remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement.

Contract law 101.

the problem is that without EVERYBODY paying premiums, the other parts of the bill are completely unworkable.

Naw, the "good 3" provisions would still be usefull.

1.  You can insure your kids until they're 26.

2.  Pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny coverage.

3.  Removal of catastophic caps.

Nope. Without everybody's money in the pool, #2 goes down the tubes. Bet money on it.

No, you and PMZ are missing one crucial point.

Coverage can't be DENIED for pre-existing conditions.  There is nothing saying how much they can CHARGE for it.

Semantics. Charging something nobody could ever possibly pay is effectively the same as denying coverage.

[Requia ☣]

It's not like it was that hard to find people who would let you in with a pre existing condition before (covering it was trickier, but not impossible).  Unless maybe there were ultra cheap employer plans that were refusing to cover employees with pre existings.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It would have been so much easier to simply allow for more options for health care purchasing. Hell, sell health care at WalMart, have co-op's for communities to get deals on healthcare equal to what businesses with the same number of employees get etc etc... If we're not gonna have universal healthcare then we need to go with expanding options for private healthcare. This bill just took the worst of both sides and smushed them together.

I wonder if the mandatory bit wasn't put in there specifically so it could be knocked over. It seemed obvious to me that it wasn't gonna pass a court case.

[Jenne]

Wal-Mart already has a Rx plan...so you're not far off, Rata.  In fact, I think some free clinics have started offering "plans" in places where poor and middle class come together.  Like my husband's clinics.

[Golden Applesauce]

Is it that different from mandatory car insurance?  I suppose there the argument can be made that if you really don't want to buy car insurance, driving is a privilege.

From a strict constitutional point of view - yeah, it definitely isn't explicitly in the constitution that the Feds can require everyone to buy Product X.

[Requia ☣]

I don't think requiring people to have car insurance is a federal law, just something every state got talked into.

Though, generally driving rules and the like are considered to be under federal authority because so much driving is on the interstates, which are federal property.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Right, car insurance ONLY applies to people that have cars and its a law that is set by the State, not by the Federal Government.

Not only is there nothing explicit that says the Feds can make you go purchase a product... but there is nothing implicit or even hinted at. That's why I think it was a kill pill.

Jenne, it wasn't my idea... McCain was arguing that the feds should remove the laws that limit insurance plans by state which would allow WalMart and other national chains to offer insurance at a deep discount since they would have large masses of people (physically and numerically) signing up. I'm not a fan of WalMart, but that idea seems far better/easier to implement/less unconstitutional than what Obama gave us.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If it does stand, or if the Supreme Court ends up striking it down, you all realize of course this means that most of the past two years of Obama's Presidency has been a gigantic waste of time.  

Fixed.