patrick.net

"A federal appeals court in Atlanta on Friday struck down a key provision of the Obama administration's health care reform law, ruling that Congress exceeded its authority in mandating that most Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty."

And rightfully so.

Finally, the Supreme Court does something right. From the beginning I argued that the individual mandate was Unconstitutional because it is in effect a tax, and tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, not the House or Lords, er, Senate.

The Court went a step further and said that the provision exceeds the authority of Congress, which is a good thing because the "tax" was a sneaky one that went to private companies rather than a public option.

The individual mandate was the most evil part of the bill. It basically tried to f' every young adult to subsidize older, more expensive users. Given how in debt the Millennials are, this bill would have killed them. It also had the effect of screwing over anybody who changes jobs frequently like software developers and pretty much most of the Millennials in any field.

Finally, the provision was essentially a gift to the corrupt big insurance companies who are 90% of the problem.

The Supreme Court has not heard or ruled on the case Dan.

shrekgrinch says

Cool!

Now lets go fully socialist single payer! C'mon! Let's see who has the balls in Congress to vote for that.

Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. Sanders actually played a major part in getting single payer health insurance implemented in Vermont a few months ago.

Ah, yes. The article does say an "federal appeals court". Good catch.

It's really amazing how wrong Dan is in every assertion he makes above.

Dan8267 says

From the beginning I argued that the individual mandate was Unconstitutional because it is in effect a tax, and tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives

PPACA is H.R.3590.

Dan8267 says

exceeds the authority of Congress, which is a good thing because the "tax" was a sneaky one that went to private companies rather than a public option

The tax, should it survive Kennedy's veto, will be levied by the IRS and goes to the UST.

Dan8267 says

The individual mandate was the most evil part of the bill. It basically tried to f' every young adult to subsidize older, more expensive users

Actually premiums are rated on age.

Dan8267 says

It also had the effect of screwing over anybody who changes jobs frequently like software developers and pretty much most of the Millennials in any field.

Huh?

Dan8267 says

the provision was essentially a gift to the corrupt big insurance companies who are 90% of the problem.

Actually the insurance cos are bound to deliver health care at 15-20% margins, including profits. This is a start. The real cost centers are the profits of hospitalization services reap -- that's the long pole in the tent between us and the eurosocialists that have half our per-capita costs.

Bellingham Bob says

The individual mandate was the most evil part of the bill. It basically tried to f' every young adult to subsidize older, more expensive users

Actually premiums are rated on age.

That doesn't matter. What matters is how much of a premium is levied on 22-year-olds. If it's more than $1/year, the young adults are being ripped off. That's why all the big health insurance companies jizzed in their pants when the individual mandate was passed. They knew they would reap huge profits off of young, healthy people who had no medical needs.

Here's a picture of one of those health insurance company CEOs.

Bellingham Bob says

It also had the effect of screwing over anybody who changes jobs frequently like software developers and pretty much most of the Millennials in any field.

Huh?

Most Millennials change jobs frequently, as do people in certain fields. It is not uncommon to be employed 99% of the year, but have an average length of employment of three to twelve months. This is becoming common today.

Since health insurance is almost always married to your employment, this means that people who switch jobs frequently (the new norm) are constantly losing their health insurance.

Penalizing them for this is about the most socially unjust thing a health insurance law could do.

The solution is simply to mandate single payer and a public option and mandate that employers give employees the option to choose the public plan.

Bellingham Bob says

It's really amazing how wrong Dan is in every assertion he makes above.

Dan8267 says

From the beginning I argued that the individual mandate was Unconstitutional because it is in effect a tax, and tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives

PPACA is H.R.3590.

"The "individual mandate," they wrote, "exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."

RTFA

Also, learn the difference between the words assertion and conclusion. You may disagree with my conclusions, but that does not make them assertions.

Bellingham Bob says

the provision was essentially a gift to the corrupt big insurance companies who are 90% of the problem.

Actually the insurance cos are bound to deliver health care at 15-20% margins,

The problem isn't just the immediate costs. The problem includes things like big insurance companies lobbying against the interests of everyone else in society. There are social costs that cannot be measured in dollars.

Bellingham Bob says

exceeds the authority of Congress, which is a good thing because the "tax" was a sneaky one that went to private companies rather than a public option

The tax, should it survive Kennedy's veto, will be levied by the IRS and goes to the UST.

The "tax" (notice the quotation marks) I was referring to is the unnecessary expense that young adults are forced to endure. I refuse to stop using metaphors when appropriate, so it's up to you to learn to recognize them.

Dan8267 says

I was referring to is the unnecessary expense that young adults are forced to endure

If the rates young people pay are out of line for their risk pool, then I agree this is a bad law.

The Kaiser calculator says a person aged 25 earning $35,000 will have around a $300/mo insurance bill and the gov will pay $5/mo towards it.

In a word, that sucks.

Canadians pay around $60/mo in direct taxes for their heath plan (additional payments come out of their general fund apparently).

Obamacare sucks, but it's better than what we had before. If you think you're getting screwed by the requirement to carry insurance, just pay the damn fine.

A person making $35,000 will have to pay a fine of $900/yr to have the privilege of not carrying coverage.

Hmm. This does suck. Movin' to Canada, brb.

Dan8267 says

You may disagree with my conclusions, but that does not make them assertions.

There's no difference between an assertion and a "conclusion". No informal argument is closed unto itself -- "conclusions" are propositions just like assertions.

The "individual mandate," they wrote, "exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."

Opinions differ. Justice Kennedy is going to decide this.

The way I see it, Congress structured the mandate constitutionally by using their 16th Amendment powers to tax people who do not meet it. That's entirely within their powers and if the public doesn't like it they're perfectly free to elect new representatives who will change the law.

Dan8267 says

The solution is simply to mandate single payer and a public option and mandate that employers give employees the option to choose the public plan.

AFAIK, this is what PPACA does, with the state exchange markets. One can carry one's own coverage under PPACA and not have to deal with employer coverage BS.

Actually, you don't have to pay the fine for not having health insurance. You can tell the govt. to go f*ck themself.

From page 131 of the law:

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

The bill also says that the govt. can't put a lien on any of your property if you don't pay the tax.

In other words, there is no individual mandate. It is imaginary. If only the penalties were the same for not paying your income tax...

HousingWatcher says

From page 131 of the law:

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

The key word is "criminal". Other forms of prosecution may apply such as garnishing wages and placing liens on property. The government does two things well: killing people and taking their money. The IRS has stated that it may simply withhold tax refunds to enforce the fine.

In any case, the individual mandate w/o single payer and public option is bad. What's good for big insurance is bad for the people. It's a zero-sum game and big insurance is winning.

Bellingham Bob says

Obamacare sucks, but it's better than what we had before.

This is largely a matter of opinion. I disagree for two reasons.

First, the two truly great parts of the Obama plan were single payer and the public option. Single payer would mean a transparent pricing policy that applied to all. Just like when you go into a restaurants, the prices for each dish is listed. No charging one schmuck ten times as much for the beef ravioli.

The public option, less critical in my opinion since non-profits could serve this function, would place competition on the insurance companies such that they would not be able to make obscene profits at the expense of the public. In an economically efficient system, there would be no profits or losses for an insurance pool in the millions, nonetheless 300+ million, of participants. Hell, I could write a software system that maintains a $0 profit/loss balance in health insurance by just adjusting the premiums and coverage level automagically to compensate for expenditures.

The second reason I disagree that we are better off after the Obama plan is a simple lesson from game theory. Reform is demanded by the public only when things get bad. By doing half-ass reform, politicians take the pressure off of passing real reform. In other words, getting a partial solution can PREVENT a full solution from being implemented.

Finally, I object to the individual mandate on the grounds that since it is essentially a tax, the legislation requiring it must come from the House of Representative rather then the Senate. If you don't give a flying fuck about Constitutional law, that might not matter a rat's ass to you. However, I do.

The purpose of requiring all taxation laws to come from the House of Representatives (i.e., the people's house) rather than the Senate (the lords' house) is that the House of Representative is more easily held accountable; is more granular and thus reflects the people's will better; and has less power than the Senate in most things and concentrating power is a bad thing. Allowing the individual mandate opens the door to the Senate passing any tax laws (whether raising or adding loopholes) it wants to as long as it obfuscates those laws by combining it with some other legislation. I.e., with a little legal trickery, the Senate usurps a major power of the House.

Btw, I thought the bill passed by the House was much better than the bill passed by the Senate.

Dan8267 says

the two truly great parts of the Obama plan were single payer and the public option.

Single payer and the public option were bridges too far in 2009. If Obama were a totalitarian dictator, or had he had a progressive wing the size of FDR's in 1932-36, we could have had it. The public option was in the House's version but the Senate version had to go through Lieberman and several other conservative Dems.

The mandate + subsidies partially simulates both, actually. It gets government into the pubic option game -- a seat at the table as a payer -- and is IMO a good enough start towards single payer.

would place competition on the insurance companies such that they would not be able to make obscene profits at the expense of the public

Insurance companies are taking a ~25% rake, but believe it or not that is not the major cost center of the US system vs. the eurosocialists.

object to the individual mandate on the grounds that since it is essentially a tax, the legislation requiring it must come from the House of Representative rather then the Senate.

The House version had mandates too.

"At heart, the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation are very much the same. Both require virtually all Americans to have health insurance, while offering low- and middle-income people subsidies to make that mandate more affordable."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1221/Three-big-differences-between-House-and-Senate-healthcare-bills

Bellingham Bob says

Single payer and the public option were bridges too far in 2009.

A partial solution can either be a stepping stone or a way of preventing a full solution from being formed. Given what I've seen in 2009, I'd say the partial solution is blocking real reform. I don't see how we are any closer to getting single payer or a public option. Today it seems less likely than it did in 2008.

Bellingham Bob says

Insurance companies are taking a ~25% rake, but believe it or not that is not the major cost center of the US system vs. the eurosocialists.

Agreed, but it is still a necessary step to take power and profits away from insurance companies. See Sicko for an explanation.

Bellingham Bob says

The House version had mandates too.

Yes, and I'm okay with the Constitutionality of that. Just because I'm against the Senate passing a tax law, doesn't mean I'm against the House passing the same tax law. How it's done is important.

I would still oppose an individual mandate without at least the single payer mechanism, though. However, that has nothing to do with Constitutional objections.

Bellingham Bob says

At heart, the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation are very much the same

At heart, my ass!. I guess it all depends on what your selling.

Please note that despite the quote you lifted from the article you site, the article's title and URL is "Three Big Differences between House and Senate health care bills." Um, I hate to judge a book by its cover or an article by its title, but the last time I heard a report in which the conclusion was so obviously stated in the title was "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States".

In any case, the three differences the Christian Science Monitor mentions are: financing, the public option, and abortion. The first two are critical differences. The house bill at least had the public option and financed the reform by taxing the rich. That's why I liked it better. I didn't say it was a great bill though. Add single payer, keep those other two differences, and I'll compromise on just about everything else and even welcome the individual mandate.

Dan, did you not read the sentence I wrote directly after the one you quoted? Here it is again:

"The bill also says that the govt. can't put a lien on any of your property if you don't pay the tax."

Also from page 131 of the bill:

‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’

Pages 286-287 of the bill state

(3) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The
Secretary (or, if applicable, the Attorney General of
the United States) shall not—
(A) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a person by reason of any failure to
pay the penalty imposed by this subsection; or
(B) levy on any such property with respect
to such failure.

Perhaps if the part "The Secretary (or, if applicable, the Attorney General of the United States) shall not file notice of lien" read "no notice of lien shall be filed" you could make the case that "The bill also says that the govt. can't put a lien on any of your property if you don't pay the tax." But it doesn't. A restriction on "the secretary's" power is hardly a guarantee that no agent of the government will file liens regardless of how a $10/hour associate press intern with no law degree summarizes a bill. And this is before a court system starts "interpreting" the law in unexpected ways.

More importantly, the law does not restrict garnishing wages or withholding overpaided taxes. And garnishment of wages is FAR worse than a lien because there is nothing you can do to protect yourself from that. As such, there is harm the government could do do individuals who refuse to buy the insurance.

The bottom line is that individuals have the right to say "no" to big insurance companies. Mandating and levying fines on people for not buying insurance without giving them an alternative to big insurance takes away that right and ensures that big insurance can abuse its customers even more. At least under the previous system, big insurance had to have some restraint so as not to scare away their customers.

If you would stop trying to nit-pick details, you would see that what I'm saying is true. The important point is that an individual mandate without real form and choice is a victory for the big insurance companies and a loss for the rest of America. And you have not said anything to convince me otherwise.

I thought a lien and the garnihsihment of your wages are the same thing? I believe technically, a wage garnishment, is a lien on your wages. Hence, a ban on liens would protect your wages and bank accounts.

HousingWatcher says

I thought a lien and the garnihsihment of your wages are the same thing?

I don't think so. But ask a lawyer to be sure. I believe liens only apply to assets, not earnings.