Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

Well, I was thinking primarily of the scare tactics around "government run health care," cries of socialism, and the attacks on Hillary Care.

But this time around it was never seriously on the table.

No, because the insurance companies have so much power. But if they're more or less shut down because of activist judges don't understand how health insurance works, then Medicare for all becomes a great savior. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a little bit of an about face by the chamber of commerce, or at least a coalition of large corporations that don't want to deal with paying insurance premiums anymore.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

No, because the insurance companies have so much power. But if they're more or less shut down because of activist judges don't understand how health insurance works, then Medicare for all becomes a great savior. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a little bit of an about face by the chamber of commerce, or at least a coalition of large corporations that don't want to deal with paying insurance premiums anymore.

The calculus for the Chamber would sure seem to change if premiums spike because the individual mandate is gone.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

No and yes. I think that the Rs in the House can do whatever the hell they want to, but they don't have the Senate and Harry Reid wouldn't let that vote get to the floor. And if by some miracle it did manage to get through after 2012 and Obama is sitll around, he'd veto. It's his centerpiece legislation and part of his legacy.

BTW, yesterday or the day before Massachusetts released a finding that 98 percent of the state is covered.

It was at the end of last week I believe. I have only seen reports of the report, but apparently wait times for physician appointments and ERs are now lengthening. It's interesting that it seems to have taken awhile for that to have some impact.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

No, because the insurance companies have so much power. But if they're more or less shut down because of activist judges don't understand how health insurance works, then Medicare for all becomes a great savior.

But it seems hard to imagine that the industry lets it play out that way. Strikes me that (assuming the case proceeds far enough) at some point the insurance lobby starts calling GOP folks and saying, Stop This Shit Or You'll Kill Our Industry. No?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

But it seems hard to imagine that the industry lets it play out that way. Strikes me that (assuming the case proceeds far enough) at some point the insurance lobby starts calling GOP folks and saying, Stop This Shit Or You'll Kill Our Industry. No?

You'd think. But as of yet, they've not given the memo to Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott, who was gloating on the radio this morning about the Virginia case. His frivilous lawsuit is heard in Florida with 20 others sometime in January or Feburary.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Well, the bigger problem for the Rs is that if they kill the mandate without killing the rest of the bill (especially the no preexisting conditions, no caps parts) then private insurance will probably die, and it'll be really easy for government to pick up the slack. I've seen a lot of liberals pretty excited about this backdoor into Medicare for everyone.

That's a very interesting angle. I hadn't considered that at all. But don't you think that if the mandate goes, the rest of the bill ultimately goes as well? I can't see this Congress allowing that sort of unfunded spending. To allow it to remain would turn us into a banana republic.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

But it seems hard to imagine that the industry lets it play out that way. Strikes me that (assuming the case proceeds far enough) at some point the insurance lobby starts calling GOP folks and saying, Stop This Shit Or You'll Kill Our Industry. No?

I think the scenario is this: (1) Judge kills individual mandate; (2) Congress makes no changes to the law in response to the decision because the Republican House and Democratic Senate and President can't agree to any; (3) insurance industry can't deny based on pre-existing conditions and doesn't get the broader coverage they were to get because of the individual mandate; (4) insurance rates soar and companies start going bankrupt, based on people with pre-existing conditions flocking to them; and (5) government has to pick up after the existing insurance industry essentially becomes non-viable.

The horse is out of the barn with (1), and no single party or lobby can put it back in the barn. A key question is how long would (4) take, because if it's 2014 when the insurance companies start strugglying, who knows what the political allignment will look like by then.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It was at the end of last week I believe. I have only seen reports of the report, but apparently wait times for physician appointments and ERs are now lengthening. It's interesting that it seems to have taken awhile for that to have some impact.

This is where you get the two tier health care system. I've said it for years: The market will service those who can afford to opt out. And it's only a matter of time until investors desperate for returns start looking at new models in health care.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's a very interesting angle. I hadn't considered that at all. But don't you think that if the mandate goes, the rest of the bill ultimately goes as well? I can't see this Congress allowing that sort of unfunded spending. To allow it to remain would turn us into a banana republic.

I hate it when you make it clear you haven't read half my posts. We've talked about this one before.

There's this great thing called the veto. If the Republicans are too busy crying to the courts to undo stuff they wouldn't even discuss or negotiate on when it was in Congress, screw them. They don't get a shot at undoing it until Sarah Pallin's in the White House.

By the way, that 1099 thing that Hank was complaining about? The Dems proposed a revision to the Health Care bill that would have eliminated the 1099 requirement as an amendment to the Tax Bill, and the Rs voted it down.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The horse is out of the barn with (1), and no single party or lobby can put it back in the barn.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We have not yet heard from the 9 old people who haunt 1 First Street.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is where you get the two tier health care system. I've said it for years: The market will service those who can afford to opt out. And it's only a matter of time until investors desperate for returns start looking at new models in health care.

There are all kinds of new models out there, but the best health care still comes from charitable hospitals without for-profit investors.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We have not yet heard from the 9 old people who haunt 1 First Street.

Yes, they're the ones with the keys to the barn.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yes, they're the ones with the keys to the barn.

As I said, reading Judge Hudson's order, it was pretty clear to me that there isn't much guidance to be found in the commerce clause cases, so it will be interesting to see where Kennedy comes out.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's a very interesting angle. I hadn't considered that at all. But don't you think that if the mandate goes, the rest of the bill ultimately goes as well? I can't see this Congress allowing that sort of unfunded spending. To allow it to remain would turn us into a banana republic.

Well, the hope to kill the bill entirely via Courts was killed in the Virginia case. A lot of the people bringing these cases forward were arguing that there's no severability clause in the bill and therefore if part of it is unconstitutional, then all of it is. The Virginia court severed out the mandate.

It'd be up to Congress, and it'd depend on which Congress is there if and when the mandate is killed. I could totally see very pissed off Dems saying "fuck it" to the Rs and letting insurance die. The stuff that will kill insurance is the stuff that's actually very popular in the healthcare reform. People don't like insurance companies very much, and insurance companies don't like the people who need insurance very much.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is where you get the two tier health care system. I've said it for years: The market will service those who can afford to opt out. And it's only a matter of time until investors desperate for returns start looking at new models in health care.

We've had a two tier system for decades. Ever actually spent time in a county hosptial?