Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary'
FOX ^

Posted on 04/01/2012 9:23:14 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary'

Published April 01, 2012 | FoxNews.com

Former Democratic Party chief Howard Dean said Sunday that the so-called individual mandate is "not really necessary" to the federal health care overhaul, and said a Supreme Court decision to invalidate the provision could end up helping President Obama.

The Supreme Court met privately on Friday to discuss the case, though a decision is not expected to be made public until June.

A central challenge in the case was over whether the requirement that Americans buy health insurance is constitutional. Further, the justices heard arguments on whether a ruling against the mandate should invalidate the health care law as a whole.

The Obama administration argued that, in that instance, a couple major parts of the law that are tied to the mandate would have to go, but that the rest of the law should stand. Opponents of the law say the entirety of the overhaul should be invalidated if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Dean, though, downplayed the implications for Obama of a landmark ruling against the mandate.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: healthcare; howarddean; individualmandate; obamacare
Never mind.........
1 posted on 04/01/2012 9:23:18 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This is like a bully who gets punched in the mouth by a kid he’s been taunting and who loses a few teeth and says, “I don’t need these teeth, I can eat better without them”.


2 posted on 04/01/2012 9:27:34 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Whoever mentioned the 2700 pages...was trying to tell us that this is TOOOOOOOOO huge to become law...and makes the government a "brute".

Obama wants this to get shot down. Then he can do piecemeal...like "the pill for all" via executive order.

3 posted on 04/01/2012 9:29:23 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

How about the ‘go to prison’ part?


4 posted on 04/01/2012 9:30:50 AM PDT by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I think Dean is right. What the conservatives are missing (and they are always 2 steps behind the curve) is that Obama doesn’t need a mandate if the government subsidizes healthcare plans. If you elect not to have coverage, that is your right, but under their plan, you will be forfeiting the subsidy that everyone else gets.


5 posted on 04/01/2012 9:34:46 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Dean is right in another sense...

Statist Marxists can destroy the civil society by overloading the system by many other means, as they are doing. On the other hand, health care CAN be reformed with real remedies such as tort reform, allowing hospitals to go after ER abusers and nonpayers, interstate insurance competition, SERIOUS deregulation, etc.


6 posted on 04/01/2012 9:38:13 AM PDT by C210N (Mitt "Severe Etch-a-Sketch" mcRominate-me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

You’d think Dean, as a physician, at least would understand that this (the IM) is a crucial funding mandate.

Otherwise, young people never will buy the expensive “Cadillac plan” that pays for the huge losses incurred in covering the elderly and the unemployed-up-to-age-26-who-live-with-parents, etc. Instead, those employed young people would either FORGO insurance or buy a cheap major-med-only plan.

Without IM, the funding mechanism collapses.


7 posted on 04/01/2012 9:38:22 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
...Howard Dean said Sunday that the so-called individual mandate is "not really necessary" to the federal health care overhaul, and said a Supreme Court decision to invalidate the provision could end up helping President Obama.

Baghdad Bob whistling past the graveyard!

8 posted on 04/01/2012 9:41:32 AM PDT by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Spin, spin, spin....


9 posted on 04/01/2012 9:42:12 AM PDT by A. Morgan (Ayn Rand: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Dean followed with "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!!!"

10 posted on 04/01/2012 9:42:14 AM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the rest of the bill?

The whole thing falls on the demise of the individual tax.


11 posted on 04/01/2012 9:48:47 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
> The whole thing falls on the demise of the individual tax.

Nope, if just the Individual Mandate is struck down, but the rest of the law is left in tact, we will then get single payer and endgame for the USA as founded.

12 posted on 04/01/2012 9:59:42 AM PDT by SecondAmendment (Restoring our Republic at 9.8357x10^8 FPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Actually, I think Dean is right in another sense. Obamacare is about power and control, not health care. If the revenue is cut off, but the mandate continues, then the whole structure collapses and you can bet that Obama would make sure that health care in general collapses. The rescue offered would be one payer national health care. The implied or explicit threat would be to adopt Obama’s proposal or die.

Then, if The Won gets his one government system, he can use it to crush and kill conservative opposition. His supporters get care and the rest get to take a number and a pill. Right thinking is rewarded. Wrong thinking and you have a short life span. The way out of this trap is a full repeal of the entire law, if the Supremes will go that far.

13 posted on 04/01/2012 10:02:45 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
So. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the rest of the bill?

BOHICA

14 posted on 04/01/2012 10:03:53 AM PDT by Poison Pill (Obama is the hopium of the masses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I think Dean was right, in part. The individual mandate was not necessary if the then Democrat controlled Congress had been willing to fund universal health care by substantially increasing taxes. Even then, "tax increases" in the necessary amounts were in disfavor.

Even with Democrat control of both houses and of the presidency, the individual mandate was seen as the only viable funding mechanism.

Even with the individual mandate, lots of sweeteners -- some unrelated to health care or related only tangentially -- had to be tossed into the pot to secure enough votes to get the monster passed. There was a bit of discussion of that during Wednesday's oral argument at the Supreme Court as to what could be left standing if the individual mandate were held unconstitutional.

Others than Dean have also opined that a Supreme Court holding that the mandate is unconstitutional would help President Obama's campaign. A point that they miss is that such a decision this June, well before the election, would raise the specter of finding a way to allow the rest to survive without massive tax increases; an impossible task, I think. I don't that would help President Obama at all.

15 posted on 04/01/2012 10:13:06 AM PDT by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
OBAMA BACK ATCHA, BACK ATCHA' BARACK
16 posted on 04/01/2012 10:20:49 AM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

This is a poker game and they are hiding something from you while they make you look at something else (a red herring trick):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2863884/posts?page=26#26

And here are the taxes in Obamacare that no one is talking about and that are designed to achieve single payer over time:

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs
not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria
plans.
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance
providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

Subtitle B—Other Provisions
Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit

SPREAD THE WORD! WAKE PEOPLE UP!


17 posted on 04/01/2012 10:25:54 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Without IM, the funding mechanism collapses.

About a year ago I went to one of the Howard Dean/Karl Rove debates. The only thing they agreed on was that Obamacare would lead to the collapse of the US healthcare system.

Rove thought that was a bad thing. Dean thought it was great, because without the collapse there'd never be an incentive to going to full single-payer/government controlled healthcare.
18 posted on 04/01/2012 10:26:37 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The vote that they took on Friday is supposed to be a big secret. Would not be surprised if Kagan or Satomayor tip off Bam as to what the vote was.


19 posted on 04/01/2012 10:31:13 AM PDT by kenmcg (How)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

This is also the reason the “opt out” provision or waiver is not really a solution, either. Your state can opt out of the mandate, or a GOP President could waive it, but it can’t opt out of the taxes which are being used to subsidize everyone else.


20 posted on 04/01/2012 11:11:03 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

It doesn`t matter if the overturning of Obamacare ends up helping Obama. It`s pretty much a wash, since Romney isn`t going to win in November anyway. The GOP Senate candidates are the ones who should jump on the issue once the USSC pulls the plug, defining what the party WILL do to fix the issue. That`ll be a fleeting chance to regenerate some anti-Obama fervor again.


21 posted on 04/01/2012 11:45:26 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

We really are just the peasants to be controlled by these people. And they are a lot better at it than they were in ages past.

Jesus was right. People are sheep.

Fortunately His sheep know his voice. But in a democracy the rest of them have a stronger vote, so we get what we get.


22 posted on 04/01/2012 2:40:50 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Without IM, the funding mechanism collapses.

They don't give a rat's behind about the funding -- that was all for show while they tried to round up the votes to pass the thing. Without IM, the private insurance companies collapse -- unless they're allowed to raise rates by 20% or so. And you can be sure Sebelius won't allow that.

Then it's single payer, baby!

23 posted on 04/01/2012 3:02:22 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller

In lieu of tax increases, 0bama could ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, to “help all the folks (aka strawmen) dying in the streets”


24 posted on 04/01/2012 4:02:07 PM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson