Yes, this was obvious when considering the numbers & economics relating to the bill's passage.
And a supreme court ruling will be good fodder for the masses.

Ben : which then leads to more money into that ponzi scheme, which then delays it being bankrupted, which then kicks the can down the road yet again.

Yep that's what they gonna do.

And the latest BS...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rejecting-obama....

Quote:

Q:) What is at stake in this hearing?

A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.

Basically, doesn't matter if something is unconstitutional, if the majority of people want it, it's alright... mob rule anyone??

Single-payer sucks but it's constitutional. If you remember my writing from the time, I argued that if you're not going to fix the system then the only other alternative is exactly that.

The amount of care and type will suck, but it will consistently suck.

Genesis : like in Canada basically?

Hell I was in the ``express`` way to get treatment (which I needed urgently) and it took me 3 months to get an appointment. And I had money to pay for private care and wanted to... but I couldn't... the type of treatment I needed wasn't available.

What should be done is a mix of private and single payer.

Don't have money or it's not urgent? Go with single payer. Have ``extra money`` and don't want to wait? Pay and get treated now.

That way everybody is happy... and it helps reduce the financial burden on the taxpayers.

Anyway, not that all that really matters since I don't know how much longer we're gonna have single payer with our inverted pyramid population problem. I doubt that in 10 years we'll have the money to fund our health care system as it is now... or it's about to get real ugly for everyone involved.

Vit: Yep.

Imagine if we had single payer, for a short period at least the government coffers would be flush with new tax money. Politicians could shore up social security with the excess, maybe fund another war. They could use that money for all kinds of things, wouldn't that be great, they've been so creative on how they used the social security fund.

Quote:

Q:) What is at stake in this hearing?

A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.

Clearly another progressive that doesn't understand the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. The republic is there to protect the rights of those 5% from the tyranny of the 95%. EODADIAF.

I think a lot a people lose sight of the fact that under s Single Payer System, the free market would still be allowed in medicine for those willing to pay for. The Single Payer may be our only hope for getting costs under control. Like Gen said, it would suck but it would be constitutional.

Quote:

Single-payer sucks but it's constitutional. If you remember my writing from the time, I argued that if you're not going to fix the system then the only other alternative is exactly that.

The amount of care and type will suck, but it will consistently suck.

Except if they work it as 'Medicare for all,' I imagine the bond market will be displeased. I can't imagine the cost of that. Medicare is a trainwreck as it is.

Steph, isn't part of the cost shifting because Medicare doesn't pay enough? The whole costs system in health care is joke. There are only two ways to address it.
1. Single Payer where the government mandates doctor to provide care at a speicific cost.
2. Reform the tort system and let the free market figure it out.

I am for (2), but realistically in this country it will not be allowed to happen so (1) is are only option.

True Steph, but just remember that often times, the Justices have already made up their minds by the time oral arguments have started. I.e. the decisions lies in the briefs. It will be interesting, but I think we are going to see a 5-4 decisions striking it down.

I understand what you're saying Fraud, but I think Bill Clinton could attest to what happens when the 'free market' intrudes on social utopia.

While you THINK #2 won't be 'allowed' to happen, I don't think it is a matter in anyone's control.

Yahoo is already running stupid articles about how "Obamacare" can work just fine without the individual mandate. Poppycock.

If the mandate is rejected the law will be worthless. Most of the agreements made with insurance companies, hospitals, HMOs, Medical Device makers, Pharma, etc were predicated on the expectation that there would be a mandate and 30M more people would be "insured". Not having the mandate means they have to come up with some way to cover those 30M and given the state of fiscal affairs there is nowhere that money can come from right now.

Obama and co took the foolish and hasty way to enact health reform. Healthcare reform of some kind is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overdue and it has been really f&^ked up by the various vested interests, including the idiotic population that thinks we can each live forever without any constraints or limits on our behavior - Pursuit of Happiness! The proper thing to do would have been to hold open forums where people can be educated on the realities of the healthcare process that no one in the media or government or private sector wants to talk about. People need to see how much money is spent, how it is spent, on whom it is spent, and what the benefits of that spending are -regardless of whether it is on a private account, government budget or whatever else volunteer/religious/magical payment system. Then it would make sense to ask if this is the best way to go about doing it, what can be done to make it more efficient and effective, what are the changes we each need to make and so on. But that would result in "winners" and "losers" being identified, and no one wants that - for liberals everyone should get a gold medal and a certificate and told they are each unique, for conservatives that would mean government and private industry getting together and choosing winners and losers and that is unacceptable, it has to happen in the mysterious magical world of the market, which is actually government, private industry deciding it agency and individual company level who are going to be the winners and losers.

The latest fear mongering :

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/03/28/me....

Quote:

If Medicaid Expansion Is Struck Down, Could Unemployment Benefits Be Next?

A broad ruling by a conservative majority in June against Medicaid could shake the shared legal foundation of landmark legislation, including unemployment benefits, the Civil Rights Act and the Clean Air Act. And that, said George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, would “completely change the balance of power of federalism.

If it can reduce federalism and make it weaker, that would be neat.

midwestern wrote..

If the mandate is rejected the law will be worthless.

That is not the argument Obama is making, its completely the opposite.

HuffPo:

WITHOUT MANDATE, NIGHTMARE AWAITS
Insurers, Uninsured Face Uncertain Future If Court Rejects Individual Mandate

DAY 3: Cohn: 'I'm Not Certain' ANY Part Of Obamacare Will Survive...
Toobin: 'Maybe A Plane Wreck For Obama'...
BUT: Court 'May Have Convinced Itself' That Law Is Too Hard To Strike Down
Comments (1,292) | Health Care

How can a law that essentially hasn't went into (much) effect yet be "too hard to strike down."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/w....

Quote:

IRS seeks 4,000 agents, $303 million for Obamacare

The Internal Revenue Service wants to add about 4,000 agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303 million building a system to oversee Obamacare even though its future looks bleak in the U.S. Supreme Court.

More IRS thugs...

This will be upheld until it goes into effect. The writing is on the wall. The front runners are buying into the insurance mandate, making the insurance companies a ton of money. They have the hands on the purse strings. When the mandatory preexisting condition clause starts to effect their bottom line. They will turn the tables, and then, and only then will it be struck down. When in doubt it is a safe bet to follow the money.

Their latest argument :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20....

Quote:

. In 1790, the very first Congress (which included 20 framers of the Constitution, in case Justices Thomas and Scalia are counting), enacted a law requiring shipowners to buy medical insurance for seamen. The law was signed by another notable framer: President George Washington. Congress followed this with a 1792 law requiring all able-bodied citizens to buy a firearm, and a 1798 law requiring seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. Today, there are a host of affirmative federal duties to buy things. For example, federal law requires corporations to hire independent auditors, and requires unions to buy insurance bonds in case their officers engage in fraud. The list goes on.

Basically the founders did force people to buy stuff before.

So did the SCOTUS uphold those laws back then, otherwise there is no precedent other than old Congresses passed unconstitutional laws as well.

Everyone has a choice to form a corporation, join a union, be union officer, own a ship, hire seamen, be a seamen.

You do not have a choice regarding breathing or not.

The witch of California speaks again.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler....

Quote:

Pelosi: Obamacare Is "Ironclad Constitutionally" Although The Supreme Court May Reject It

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDW9fTYk_....]

Whoever reelected her should have their brain bashed in.