Obamacare is already on its deathbed

Washington Examiner ^ | Mon Aug 22, 2011 | Conn Carroll

[markomalley]

When the United States Supreme Court examines the individual-mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act sometime next spring, it will undoubtedly give great weight to the text of the United States Constitution and relevant Commerce Clause case law.

But, whether or not any justice will ever admit it, some on the court may be hesitant to invalidate the new law because of the significant strain it would place on an already divided Congress.

These worries are misplaced. Obamacare is already a very sick patient whose symptoms will inevitably require major action by Congress. A Supreme Court decision invalidating some, or all, of the law would only hasten the inevitable.

The signs that Obamacare was never long for this world began to appear soon after the bill became law last spring. Reports began leaking about large employers securing waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Seems many firms were considering dropping their insurance plans since their policies didn't meet the new law's minimum annual benefit requirements. Almost 1,500 waivers have been granted since then, covering more than 3.2 million Americans.

Obamacare's next blow came in December when Congress needed money to prevent Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors from falling by almost 30 percent.

Earlier versions of Obamacare had included a permanent fix for the doctor reimbursement issue, but the provision was stricken from the final bill because Democrats were unwilling to reduce spending elsewhere in the federal budget in order to pay for it.

The $19 billion Congress used to pay for the one-year fix in December came from increased penalties on consumers whose eligibility for Obamacare health insurance subsidies decreases midyear because of income fluctuations.

Then in May this year, Congress increased the Obamacare health exchange subsidy penalties by another $19 billion. This time Congress had to pay for the repeal of the law's 1099 provision, which would have required small-business owners to file tax-reporting documents for almost all of their vendors.

Fast-forward to Aug. 12, when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found Obamacare's individual mandate unconstitutional. That same day, the Treasury Department issued new regulations rendering millions of Americans ineligible for health insurance subsidies based on a technical definition of "affordable."

Judy Solomon of the liberal Center for Budget Priorities think tank said, "The proposed rule would mean that many spouses and dependents who are uninsured today because they can't afford family coverage would remain uninsured in 2014."

Treasury promised to mitigate the problem by exempting affected families from the law's insurance mandate. But while these families might not have to pay penalties for violating the mandate, they still have to cope with an insurance market where premiums will be much higher because of Obamacare's other insurance regulations.

Congress will have to find some way to help these families. Congress must also find a long-term solution to the Medicare reimbursement problem. Not to mention the impending backlash from the millions of Americans who will be forced to pay $38 billion in health exchange fines just because they managed to get a raise.

And we haven't even touched the inevitable controversy and litigation that will come when the Independent Payment Advisory Board begins making cuts to Medicare and refusing to reimburse providers for selected procedures.

Obamacare has never been popular. It debuted with a barely 50 percent favorable rating, which sunk to the low 40s by the time it passed, and stands in the high 30s today.

The law is unmanageable, unsustainable, unpopular and, according to the 11th Circuit, unconstitutional. If the justices on the Supreme Court have any sense of mercy, they will officially put the law out of its misery and invalidate the entire act.

[Liz]

YOU GET A PRIZE IF YOU CAN FIND Accountable Care Organizations in this diagram.

Here it is----your new Obamacare healthcare system. O/Care adds over 100 new boards, commissions and programs. For example a new Medicare Commission, exempt from judicial review, will unilaterally write rules about utilization and pricing of medical devices and drugs often needed by surgeons. Many regulatory bodies will be overarching in their abilities to select and direct medical subjects concerning Tri-Care, employer group policies, Veteran’s Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Diligent govt personnel could not fit all of O'Care's new law’s boards, commissions, mandates, and other elements on this chart. So they created “bundles of bureaucracy.”

Seven collective symbols respectively represent clusters of four loan repayment and forgiveness programs, four other new regulatory programs, 17 insurance mandates, 19 special-interest provisions, 22 other new bureaucracies, 26 other new demonstration and pilot programs, and 59 other new grant programs.....

NOTE These 151 additions do not appear individually on the Ocare diagram. If included, the diagram would be three times larger.

[Venturer]

Nancy Pelosi’s legacy.

[Truth29]

Seems to me that Obamacare is working perfectly. It will assure the collapse of the insurance industry and add to the push for a total single payer system.

[CitizenUSA]

I'm thinking a 5 to 4 decision. I'd like to think Obamacare goes too far for even the likes of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them say government can force citizens to participate in commerce. Didn't Kagan evade a question about whether government could force someone to eat healthy during her nomination? I'm for impeaching any of them that uphold the individual mandate. There has to be some sort of punishment for justices that make such egregious rulings, but I doubt more than even a few Republicans would be willing to do it.

[fortheDeclaration]

I will be happy to take a 5-4 ruling.

I don't expect any of the radical Leftist judges to vote against it.

[pepsionice]

Here is the sad part about the mandate...if you think it’s ethical and legal to make a guy buy health insurance, then the same legislative process could require every American citizen to own and carry a weapon. Naturally, that would upset a number of folks quickly...but it’s the same logic.

And I will point this out...all European countries have an opt-out deal on their national health insurance deal. Typically, you have to make more than $60k (roughly) and you arrange for your own situation. Most countries also allow a gov’t employee opt-out....like firemen or police...to arrange their own situation. Anyone who says European countries require everyone to play as part of the system....is absolutely incorrect (I know because I spent fifteen years of my life in Europe).

[10thAmendmentGuy]

It will be 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of upholding ObamaCare imo. I can't see any of the 4 liberals voting to strike it down. Not only are they apologists for the idea that people have a right to health care, but they also think that the federal government has the right to regulate almost anything under the Commerce Clause. Roberts and Alito are not true conservatives in the mold of Clarence Thomas, and Justice Scalia has shown himself more than willing to respect stare decisis, even when it is clearly incorrect. The Commerce Clause has been dead for more than 65 years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause to step into California and arrest medical marijuana patients, even though it is legal under state law.

I'm curious as to why you think them upholding ObamaCare would be such an egregious ruling. If they do so, it will merely be another nail in the coffin of the Commerce Clause, but hardly the first. The Supreme Court has only struck down Commerce Clause legislation twice in the past 65 years, and ObamaCare is Commerce Clause legislation. Now if you're saying that upholding ObamaCare would be egregious because the ruling would have profound negative impacts on our health care system then I agree with you, but I find the ObamaCare legislation to be equally as offensive as most of the unconstitutional legislation they have upheld in past years.

[10thAmendmentGuy]

By the way, I absolutely agree with you that the very idea of the government forcing someone to buy a good from a private company is repugnant. I hope that if the Supreme Court does uphold the legislation, that one impact if that will be a recognition that we need more justices on the Court that actually understand the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. By my count, we have one (Justice Thomas). The other 8 are Beltway tools.

[taildragger]

And I will point this out...all European countries have an opt-out deal on their national health insurance deal.

Yes I have heard this about Italy when a good friend of ours was expecting while on business thier. She was told if you need it you can get the state system, but no go private.

Boy, I wish I could have an Opt-Out for Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security. Johnson was worse than FDR, what Millstones around our necks...

[gusopol3]

At least you don’t have to look long for tho IRS.

[SkyPilot]

"Justice" Kagan committed perjury during her confirmation hearing. Period. Dot.

Citing Evidence They Call 'Contradictory' to Kagan's Confirmation Testimony, 49 Lawmakers Call for Judiciary Committee Investigation

Furthermore, she helped write Obamacare itself. There is absolutely no way she should be allowed to sit in judgment on this decision.

Supreme Court judge Elena Kagan suspected of deception during confirmation hearings

[EandH Dad]

Kagan will have to recuse herself since she wrote the defense argument. A 4-4 tie lets stand the lower court ruling. Without the mandate it has to pass the full house because it was passed as a budget recocilliation. O-care is DOA.

[9YearLurker]

Doesn’t Switzerland require its adult men to own guns? I’m okay with that, but I’m not okay with Obamacare.

[SkyPilot]

In your chart (if you look at a larger print version), you will see several new "minority" agencies that do nothing bu promote racism and discrimination against whites.

Courtesy of our Federal Govt.

[CitizenUSA]

fortheDeclaration: “I don’t expect any of the radical Leftist judges to vote against it.”

Neither do I, but any justice who upholds the individual mandate should be removed from office for bad behavior. If the individual mandate is constitutional, then nothing (other than limits on abortion and homosexuality) is unconstitutional. I don’t care how much they try to twist this one. Any justice who upholds it is a tyrant!

[fortheDeclaration]

Totally agree, this should be an unanimous decision.

[CitizenUSA]

10thAmendmentGuy: “I’m curious as to why you think them upholding ObamaCare would be such an egregious ruling.”

Even though the Commerce Clause has been warped and twisted in many ways, it’s never meant government has the right to force citizens to engage in commerce. Wickard v. Filburn, for example, didn’t force Filburn to buy wheat.

[Flintlock]

Yeah??
Howsabout Kagen, Ginsburg—the “wise” latina??

Don’t bet on sanity, these days.

[10thAmendmentGuy]

A 4-4 split is not going to happen. I think you are mistaken if you think Chief Justice Roberts is going to strike down the mandate. Justice Roberts signed onto the majority opinion in United States v. Comstock last year, which was written by Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer wrote that by virtue of the Necessary and Proper clause, the federal government is allowed to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his sentence. He was joined in this opinion by Roberts, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The two dissenters were Scalia and Thomas (the two most reliable conservative justices). Even if Kagan recuses herself (which she should, but no SCOTUS justice can be forced to recuse themselves), you still have 3 reliable votes for the mandate (the liberals: Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer). Kennedy has always taken a broad and perverted view of the Commerce Clause, so that is 4. The 5th vote will come from Roberts. So in my opinion, the decision will be at least 5-3 to uphold if Kagan recuses herself, and 6-3 if she does not.