.
.
.
CLOSET SINGLE-PAYER ADVOCATES? If Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the right-wing Neanderthals of the U.S. Supreme Court, vote with a majority of Justices to strike down the “individual mandate”–a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s Republican “health care reform” agenda–the U.S. may soon be compelled to join the rest of the civilized world and adopt a single-payer system.
As you may already be aware, on Friday, August 12th, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down the “individual mandate” provision of the “Affordable Care Act” signed into law last year by Democratic president Barack Obama.
According to the 11th Circuit Court, the “individual mandate,” which forces people to purchase health insurance–a product from a private company–violates the federal constitution because it is beyond Congress’ scope to regulate such activity.
As an opponent of Obama’s “Affordable Care Act,” I have absolutely no qualms in admitting I quietly applauded the appellate court ruling trashing the “individual mandate”–the centerpiece of what in essence was a Republican initiative to begin with.
And yes, I said Republican, because anybody who bothers to carefully read it will discover key parts were modeled–almost word for word–on legislation first introduced by Republican party politicians in the early 1990s to counteract “Hillarycare.”
It is perhaps ironic that Obama–one of the most rabidly pro-Wall Street presidents in the history of this country–is labeled by right-wing Tea partiers as being a “socialist” for enacting into law what formerly was the GOP’s agenda for “health care reform.”
Equally amusing is the Obama administration’s use of right-wing rhetoric in defending the “individual mandate.” Just look at the remark that Stephanie Cutter, a Deputy Senior Advisor, recently made about this matter on the White House blog:
Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us–when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.
Sound familiar?
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich–whom many liberals pretty much deride as a lunatic–used similar language when promoting the very same concept in an opinion piece on “health care reform” he helped pen for The Des Moines Register in June 2007:
Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance as well. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.
Déjà vu?
None of this should be of any surprise given the “individual mandate” idea first surfaced in a policy paper entitled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank linked to the Republican party, in October 1989.
As Mother Jones magazine pointed out, other major aspects of “Obamacare,” like the concept of “health insurance exchanges,” were also inspired by the same think tank–something even the president himself acknowledged on NBC’s Today show in March 2010.
The 11th Circuit Court’s ruling undoubtedly assures the U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts (no relationship to me, incidentally), will be be called upon to determine the “constitutionality” of this matter.
Now if Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the right-wing Neanderthals on that body, vote with a majority of Justices to strike down the “individual mandate,” the U.S. may soon be compelled to join the rest of the civilized world and adopt a single-payer system.
I’m not holding my breath, but American capitalism is fraught with so many internal contradictions I can’t rule out the possibility a handful of ideologues could make a decision that inevitably causes the dissolution of the private health insurance industry.
Hey, stranger things have happened.
I mean, who on earth, for example, would have been insane enough to predict a sleazy Republican party politician like Richard Milhous Nixon would as president enact some of the most sweeping and progressive environmental laws of the late 20th Century?
“If” Thomas and Scalia vote to strike down the individual mandate? If? Dude, those two are voting to strike it down…there is no “if” about it.
The only person deciding the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be Anthony Kennedy.
This is why Professor Chemerinsky refers to this Court as “the Kennedy Court.” He pretty much decides everything, which is good for corporations and gay people.
True, It will be up to Kennedy as most things are.
But I wonder about how the ruling will impact Car insurance laws. They are mostly based on the same legal premise about the public good. They use fines and penalties to force or encourage people who drive to have insurance; it is the same type of individual mandate as the health Care plan.
Nothing in either law actually makes it a crime to be uninsured, but both impose stiff fines if you are found not to have it.
It is interesting that the Republicans now oppose their plan, the Romney actually already implemented
There are in economic reality only two ways to have everyone covered, that would be the current reforms that has been put in or Single payer. The other choice is to return to the current system that relied on Emergence rooms for the poor.
It’s different. Nobody is forced to drive a car or have a driver’s license. We are pretty much forced to be alive.
“We are pretty much forced to be alive.”……… Hmmmmm
For a supper liberal socialist that is pretty conscious admission comrade Vern.
Come on Vern, No one is forcing you to live and if that was true then that Fullerton guy would still be pluged in.
You are forced to live on pain of death!!! LOL
It is even more different because the mandatory part of the car insurgence insures for damage done by you to others not to you which is consistent with the general liability laws.
However, It would be possible to force you to purchase medical insurance if you could spread, lets say, AIDS because if you have such medical condition you are liable if you act recklessly.
neanderthals , you mean ginsburg , . its simple you cant be forced into buying ins . you cant punish or tax or raise a fee on folks who dont want it . of course taxes , fee . are the groundwork of the left . see calif .
Oh really? Then would you care to explain this phrase, straight from the Constitution;
“The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States”
If I thought the striking down of the current bill would bring single payer, I would agree with you. However, I don’t see any chance for single payer particularly after the defeat of this bill. In fact it seems more likely that single payer emerges out of changes to the current bill (five years hence).
Really, I don’t see even a majority of today’s Democratic Congressmen – let alone any Republicans – voting for single payer in this decade. SO many whores – for big insurance, big Pharma, doctors & hospitals… it was Herculean to even get the ultra-compromised Obamacare through.
Maybe in the states though – Vermont is blazing the trail, Oregon is not far behind, and we have a long-standing, vibrant, single-payer activist community here in California.
I wonder how this will effect Medicare because it is also mandatory starting at 65 and if you opt out there is 10% penalty for every ear you skip.
You damage other people if you do not have insurance because they end up paying for your care since you are likely to go to the ER in serious condition which is the most expensive care available.
You still would have a choice, under this law. You could not go to the doctor or ER for any reason, unless you could completely self pay or pay the penality if you choose to seek care.
Good point on the medicare, of course that would fit into the Republicans agenda to do away with it.
“You damage other people if you do not have insurance because they end up paying for your care since you are likely to go to the ER in serious condition which is the most expensive care available.”……….. Hmmmm
Absolutely communist’s like thinking.
There is no law which requires others to pay for my care.
It is communistic idea.
To pay for my care is my business not others.
Do you understand word sovereignty?
As matter of fact I have living will: “not to resuscitate!”….. so why would I be in the ER?
Can you communists be concern with yourselves meaning other the communists?… and these who beg you to support them?…… and not with these who are sovereign free spirits?
I am not your subject so fuck off.
I think we all know that no mandate means end of health insurers if Obamacare continues.
Yes, we do need health care reform. But each state should be running their show with help from the federal level. Ohio’s rates are affordable…among the lowest in the US. We don’t need a takeover of the system. Maybe other states do. Fine. But the gove doesn’t fit all of the states.
OHIO – No on SB5!! Thanks for visiting.
There is no law which requires others to pay for my care.
That is completely correct, we agree on that. But there are laws on the books that Emergency Rooms cannot turn away those who are uninsured and cannot pay.
Someone has to pay for those costs, the care is not free it costs the hospital money.
So to pay the bills the hospital or provider has to raise the amount it charges others.
Many use the ER for simple things like colds, the flu, a broken fingernail perhaps, because they do not have insurance or a regular doctor.
The ER is reqiured to treat them, both by law and by simple humanity, angel do not appear from the heaven and pay for this care, they pass the cost on to those who have insurance or those who can pay.
Common Sense 101
“But there are laws on the books that Emergency Rooms cannot turn away those who are uninsured and cannot pay.”…….. Hmmmm
But the law does not prohibit these Emergency Rooms from reimbursing themselves.
In other wards if you have any assets they will collect.
The only illegals are noncollectable group…… your socialism.
You can’t enact socialistic laws and than sent the bill to people.
If you do you will bankrupt state, as it is now.
A comment
The cost to others must rise to pay for those without the ability to pay. Sounds correct, but is it?
That very same excuse was used as a reason to make auto insurance mandatory. There are a few uninsured motorist out there, but most do have the insurance.
So the insurance companies have been paid and the doctors have been paid and the hospitals have been paid.
What happened? The costs still have gone up, even faster for medical costs.
I am not sure about that. I do know that I was paying about 65 a month for Auto insurance before the mandatory law, which was at least 15 years ago if not a few more.
I currently pay 105 for triple the coverage I had 15 years ago and with a better company. So for me the mandatory law has been a plus in the car insurance area,
But I do remember that for the first couple years the rates did spike way up but then they came back down.
I think your savings is based on the required change in how the price of auto insurance is computed. More on miles driven and age and claims.
Mine currently works out to 16 dollars a month for each car.
A co-worker on the census had cheap insurance, but he chose to use his auto a lot (we got reimbursed mileage) his insurance company hit him up big time at renewal cause of the big increase in mileage driven.
Thank god I don’t have to carry insurance on my bicycles.
I was protesting/picketing for single payer, and also for the public option, before HCR was passed. A right-wing media activist with a camcorder videotaped me, and we started talking. I informed her that the Obama plan had, among it’s provisions, an individual mandate to force people who didn’t get insurance to buy it. She supported that idea.
Then I explained both the public option and single payer, informing her that single payer was dead in the water, and I was just holding that sign to make a point about what I wanted, not what was being debated. She was supportive of a public option, as some kind of extension of Medicaid (at the time, some Dems and Reps were pushing the idea of expanding Medicaid so more people would qualify).
So given some room to think, these right-wingers will support what amounts to increased “socialism.” It’s just when the puppet masters go into action, these right-wing parrots will say whatever they’re told to say, and think whatever they’re told to think. It’s sad.
That said, despite the corporatist slant of Obamacare, I am okay with an individual mandate. Whatever system is adopted, there will be an “individual mandate” – even under a single payer system, we’d have to raise taxes on people – and probably need to do part of it Medicare style, as a flat tax on all income.
I look at the individual mandate as a way to quickly scale up the operation. The consumer market also gives people some choices, and some people seem to accept government mandated services a little more when it’s delivered through a private company. (Americans are odd in this way. We like our illusions.)
Also, people talk a lot of crap about insurance, but for the most part, it’s been okay. We do need a public option, though, to keep the market in check. It can even be subsidized and needs-based if the qualifications are very liberal and allow most people to use the public option.
There are examples of this in action. CA has a earthquake insurance system that’s mandatory, and the public option keeps the rates low. We also have mandatory car insurance, and prices were (and are) high. There wasn’t a public option for years, but now there is a subsidy if you’re poor enough. As more people use this quasi-public-option, we should see rates moderate and maybe decline. At the very least, the rates for the (annoying) uninsured-motorist insurance should decline as more people get insured.
I think, for practical reasons, the SCOTUS will allow an individual mandate. These mandates exist for people who own cars and people who own houses. If it’s mandatory to buy insurance for these things, why not for health care, which is more expensive to insure than a car or house?
If they strike the individual mandate down, then what are the options for CA’s insurance requirements? No-fault auto insurance, and government operated home/fire/flood/earthquake insurance? You can’t practically do otherwise – the costs of uninsured drivers and homeowners is too great a burden on the cities and counties that bear the costs of auto accidents and damage to houses. It could drain the funds of FEMA after every distaster.
Would they mandate the existence of a public option? I could see an argument for it – that if the government is forcing you to buy something, they need to offer a version of the product that’s government-run.