How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Gaspar]

The final Obamacare challenge will be decided today in Atlanta (perhaps today).  This will be the case that will end up going to the Supremes.  When that happens, Elena Kagan will recues herself (she was the primary architect for the Obama defense of the act). 

This leaves the court with 8 justices to decide the case and it is expected that they will be split 50/50.  What that means is that the Atlanta decision will stand.

The singular question that is being decided in Atlanta today, and will serve as precedent for millions of other cases in the future is:
Can the Federal Government punish an individual for not engaging in commerce?

If it is found that Government can indeed impose punishment on individuals for not engaging in commerce, this will forever change the relationship between government and the people in the United States.  It sounds simple, but this restriction on government has vast consequences that will forever change the lives of all US Citizens.  This simple change unravels the bonds.

The pressure on these justices must be immense.  Offer them your prayers.

[Gaspar]

So far, it looks promising for the American People.  In yesterday's testimony:

Judges Dubina and Marcus demanded that the government articulate constitutional limiting principles to the power it asserted. And countless times they pointed out that never in history has Congress tried to compel people to engage in commerce as a means of regulating commerce. Even Judge Hull, reputed to be the most liberal member of the panel, conducted a withering cross-examination to establish that the individual mandate didn't help that many people get affordable care, that the majority of people currently without coverage would be exempt from the requirement (presumably due to their income level).

[heironymouspasparagus]

You hit the nail on the head, just with the wrong end of the hammer!

In free markets, monopoly is impossible.

Wow!  So close, yet so far away!  In the entire history of the country, the only time a regulation ever was created was IN RESPONSE to an excess of the monopolists!  Usually after the level of pain, suffering, death had reached such egregious proportions that the Congress was virtually forced to act!  (See History 101)

Things/people/companies like Union Pacific, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Triangle Waist Shirt company, the packing houses in Chicago (time to re-read some Upton Sinclair - The Jungle), 1929 Crash, the dust bowl, and myriad others.  This is what Bush and Company were all about - take us back to an earlier day - say, 1906?

[Gaspar]

Wow!  So close, yet so far away!  In the entire history of the country, the only time a regulation ever was created was IN RESPONSE to an excess of the monopolists!  Usually after the level of pain, suffering, death had reached such egregious proportions that the Congress was virtually forced to act!  (See History 101)

Things/people/companies like Union Pacific, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Triangle Waist Shirt company, the packing houses in Chicago (time to re-read some Upton Sinclair - The Jungle), 1929 Crash, the dust bowl, and myriad others.  This is what Bush and Company were all about - take us back to an earlier day - say, 1906?

Regulation and protection from force are two different things.  It is governments duty to protect citizens from force.  Your above examples are where government failed to carry out it's basic duty and protect the rights of citizens.

Your above examples deal with safety, not trade/price regulation (apple/orange).

When we are discussing the regulation that is in place for medical insurance companies, we are not discussing laws related to the safety of the citizen.  We are discussing price/trade regulation, and subsidization. This ALWAYS results in coercive monopolies, government advocated trust situations, collusion, "price protection" (price fixing) and depletes competitive forces.

[Conan71]

And in the case of Obamacare, it's actually resulted in shrinking the pool of competition. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

GM with the trolley destruction.  Protecting against trade/price problems.  Convictions.

Anti-trust against Microsoft.  Convictions.

Union Pacific was/is against economic activity - and the criminal activities it engendered.
Triangle Waist shirt was another case of economic destruction of the people - right up until they burned a bunch of the workers to death.
Packing houses??  Well, "capitalism" run wild.
As was Ford calling out there goons with machine guns to mow down the workers!

There was no protection of the people by the government until WAY after the fact.  And each of these, as many others, are the direct effect of unregulated capitalistic monopolism.  Much like we have come full circle to in the latest economic meltdown - the deregulation of banking.

How much does it take before reality intrudes??

[Red Arrow]

GM with the trolley destruction.  Protecting against trade/price problems.  Convictions.

The penalties were trivial.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Absolutely!  In all those cases!!  Just shows that even if there is some window dressing "penalty", there is still enough money floating to the people making the rules that there is no real penalty.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something like, oh,...I don't know...maybe a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people..." ??  Rather than of, by and for the corporations??

Us real people don't have the money or the power, though, so it remains an unrealized dream!

[guido911]

Here's a great idea, use the "secret shopper" approach to determine if there are enough doctors out there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/health/policy/27docs.html?_r=1

Kinda thought you would want to know that before you passed Obamacare.

[guido911]

Saw today the 6th Circuit found the mandate constitutional. This is a real mess now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yeah,...what a mess!  Several hundred billion in savings over the next few years!  Won't that be a shame?

[guido911]

Yeah,...what a mess!  Several hundred billion in savings over the next few years!  Won't that be a shame?

Love to have your link for that assertion.

[we vs us]

Love to have your link for that assertion.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/battle_over_health_care.html

Here's an interesting article from the first of this year that says the CBO predicts $143billion in deficit reduction at the end of the first decade.  There is still a good deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual number, because prevailing economic conditions and demographic trends will cause it to fluctuate.  But it's almost certain that HCR will be a deficit reducer in some capacity.

[Conan71]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/battle_over_health_care.html

Here's an interesting article from the first of this year that says the CBO predicts $143billion in deficit reduction at the end of the first decade.  There is still a good deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual number, because prevailing economic conditions and demographic trends will cause it to fluctuate.  But it's almost certain that HCR will be a deficit reducer in some capacity.

Of course there will be fluctuations.  How many CBO scores and projections of measures done from 2000 to 2005 got totally hosed by wars, Katrina, and the eventual near collapse of our financial system and economy?  We tend to think of CBO numbers as being so authoritative, but any number of factors could really skew their best case scenario.

And, of course, the projections are also based on program implementation actually rolling out as it was proposed in the original scoring.  HCR still has a lot of unknowns.  I'm also curious how the waivers are going to affect the costs as companies are carving themselves out of the program which was supposed to spread costs.  Start taking away good risks from the risk pool, and then what?

[we vs us]

The waivers as I understand them weren't permanent and were intended to allow certain businesses/orgs/etc a longer period than the standard mandate to make the HCR switchover.   These were groups in areas that might be more sensitive than most to the accounting or cost changes.  But it's moot now, because mandates are off the table. 

I obviously can't tell you the ins and outs of the CBO scoring or their accounting methods, but in all of this they're in the position to be the most authoritative on costs/benefits.