Supreme court to decide health law tomorrow

[Savetheplanet]

The main event before the court is Tuesday's argument over the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement. What do you think? Will the affordable health care act be upheld, or struck down? Should be interesting as this is an election year.

 

The court will also release audio recordings of the arguments on the same day they take place.

 

The case arrives at a high court in which ideology and political affiliation align for the first time in generations. The four Democratic appointees make up the liberal wing, while the five justices named by Republican presidents form a cohesive conservative majority on key issues.

Even in the district courts, the first decissions fell along party lines. Democratic-appointed judges uniformly upheld the law or dismissed suits against it, while Republican appointees in Florida and Virginia struck it down. But in federal apeals courts, one Democratic appointee joined in the decision that struck down the insurance requirement. In two other opinions, conservative Republican-appointed judges voted to uphold the law. But in federal appeals courts, one Democratic appointee joined in the decision that struck down the insurance requirement. In two other opinions, conservative Republican-appointed judges voted to uphold the law.

 

Seems to mew it could go either way. most people are focusing on the constitutionally aspect of the law. There are however a couple of facts that are left out of the discussion. One is that now you can stay on your parents insurance until twenty six years of age. The other is that seniors don't have to spend as much money on drugs as they used to. I wanted to just talk about the supreme court and their upcoming decision , but I can't seem to stop myself from offering an opinion on the affordable health care act itself.

 

The U.S. spends about two-and-half times as much on health care as other industrialized countries, but it does no better on life expectancy and other measures than nations that spend far less. Even without the new law, you and I STILL PAY for those who don't have coverage. The Republicans had their chance to come up with a solution when Bush was in office, will they ever come up with a game plan to improve our health care?

 

STP

[RangerM]

From what I can see, the question of Constitutionality hinges on the individual mandate.

 

Rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly in the case of healthcare, imo) the Congress has the power to regulate commerce; and if that means they define what forms of insurance are lawful to offer and purchase, unfortunately that is a power they wield with reckless abandon.

 

However, the "mandate" isn't regulating commerce, because commerce is an activity as opposed to an INactivity.

 

The counter-argument is usually based on the idea that "everyone will affect the healthcare system at some point in their lives". That's true, but until that point, they have not, and that is the problem--the regulation of present inactivity as opposed to future activity.

 

Trouble is, the individual mandate is a cop out for what is really necessary, but noone wants to actually do--refuse treatment to non-paying customers.

[xr7g428]

I don't think the court will act on party lines, but rather on interpretations of what the Constitution says... which is exactly what they are supposed to do. There are many other ways to go if they strike down the mandatory compulsion to purchase insurance aspect of the program. That is already falling apart as they are having to carve out loop holes for the Amish and others already.

 

Having actually read the majority of the documnet, it does very close to nothing at all to reduce the cost of insurance (mostly it increases it).

Here are things that make insurance go up: No lifetime limit. The more money they have at risk the more they HAVE to charge. No exclusion of preexisting conditions. They have to insure them, but there is nothing that controls what they can (and must) charge. I could go on and on.

 

It does very little to reduce the cost of medical services. The only significant reduction in cost was the reduction in reimbursement rates for physicians. They have never actually done this when required to in the past. There is little reason to think they will do so in the future.

 

The argument that the US spends more on health care is specious. First off the US spends more on just about everything from video games to tummy tucks: BECAUSE WE CAN. In Scottsdale it will not be necessary to build an Ark if it floods... We can just lash together all the women with boob jobs. There are also a lot of foreigners that come here to purchase medical services, and they don't come for just a check up. This further inflates the size of the US medical market.

 

Which brings me to the next defect in the argument: longevity. No where else in the world will you find so many drunk people riding motorcycles without helmets. IF you remove the accidental deaths from the US picture all of the sudden things change dramatically for the better. But even that doesn't really address the real cost benefit ratio of American medical care. Blaming doctors for what they don't get to treat, or they can;t cure: stupidity and bad habits, just clouds the issue. What really counts is what happens when you become ill and the doctors get to treat you, In virtually ever case, your chances of survival are significantly higher in the US than any other country. The next big measure of success is qualtiy of life. Needing a knee or hip replaced in the US is not big deal. You can get the procedure in just a few days if required. Ask the Canadians that fill our waiting rooms in Arizona why they are here: they want to be treated while they are still young enough to benefit from the procedure. Suffering pain every day for a year might keep costs down, but ask the patient how they feel about that.