Skip to comments.Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary'
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 ...
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”.
Obama wants this to get shot down. Then he can do piecemeal...like "the pill for all" via executive order.
How about the ‘go to prison’ part?
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.
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.
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.
Baghdad Bob whistling past the graveyard!
Spin, spin, spin....
Dean followed with "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a poker game and they are hiding something from you while they make you look at something else (a red herring trick):
And here are the taxes in Obamacare that no one is talking about and that are designed to achieve single payer over time:
TITLE IXREVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle ARevenue Offset Provisions
Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W2.
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
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
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 BOther 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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”