The Commonwealth of Virginia will sue

[danefan]

Not really. Most of those 35 million won't be going to the health insurance companies. They'll be going to the non-profit co-ops.

These non-profits will underwrite the policies? So, the non-profits will be providing the coverage? I'll believe when I see it. The insurance industry is just as propped up by the government now as banks and car companies...actually more. People aren't required to buy their products.

Yes. Each state Exchange is required to have at least 1 non-profit insurance provider that underwries and provides coverage. These non-profits cannot have ever been for-profit insurance companies either. No conversion allowed.

[Skjellyfetti]

These non-profits will underwrite the policies? So, the non-profits will be providing the coverage? I'll believe when I see it. .

You know there already are health insurance co-ops in the country, right? They've been around at least 50 years. And they're very successful.

Here's the most successful one and I believe what the concept in the bill was modeled off of:
http://www.healthpartners.com/portal/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthPartners" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now you've seen it.

[native]

These non-profits will underwrite the policies? So, the non-profits will be providing the coverage? I'll believe when I see it. .

You know there already are health insurance co-ops in the country, right? They've been around at least 50 years. And they're very successful.

Here's the most successful one and I believe what the concept in the bill was modeled off of:
http://www.healthpartners.com/portal/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthPartners" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now you've seen it.

Then why do we need Obamacare?

[danefan]

You know there already are health insurance co-ops in the country, right? They've been around at least 50 years. And they're very successful.

Here's the most successful one and I believe what the concept in the bill was modeled off of:
http://www.healthpartners.com/portal/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthPartners" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now you've seen it.

Then why do we need Obamacare?

Healthpartners is only available in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

[dbackjon]

Then why do we need Obamacare?

Healthpartners is only available in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Which are already socialist states.

[ASUMountaineer]

These non-profits will underwrite the policies? So, the non-profits will be providing the coverage? I'll believe when I see it. The insurance industry is just as propped up by the government now as banks and car companies...actually more. People aren't required to buy their products.

Yes. Each state Exchange is required to have at least 1 non-profit insurance provider that underwries and provides coverage. These non-profits cannot have ever been for-profit insurance companies either. No conversion allowed.

Hmm...interesting. So, you either purchase from for-profit, non-profit, or pay a fine? Still forced patronage of private industry...

[ASUMountaineer]

These non-profits will underwrite the policies? So, the non-profits will be providing the coverage? I'll believe when I see it. .

You know there already are health insurance co-ops in the country, right? They've been around at least 50 years. And they're very successful.

Here's the most successful one and I believe what the concept in the bill was modeled off of:
http://www.healthpartners.com/portal/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthPartners" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now you've seen it.

Like I said in my reply to DF, it's still forced patronage of private industry. That hasn't changed, you can remove the currently established insurance companies, but citizens are still forced to purchase a product because they breathe. Healthpartners is still a private company, they provide a product for a price, and citizens will be forced to purchase it--or be fined.

[hank scorpio]

Justice Scalia pointed out in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress can regulate even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective.

Critics charge that . . . people [who do not buy insurance] are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies. All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, like people who substitute homegrown marijuana or wheat for purchased crops, the cumulative effect of uninsured people’s behavior undermines Congress’s regulation — in this case, its regulation of health insurance markets. Because Congress believes that national health care reform won’t succeed unless these people are brought into national risk pools, it can regulate their activities in order to make its general regulation of health insurance effective.

http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/ ... other.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danefan]

Yes. Each state Exchange is required to have at least 1 non-profit insurance provider that underwries and provides coverage. These non-profits cannot have ever been for-profit insurance companies either. No conversion allowed.

Hmm...interesting. So, you either purchase from for-profit, non-profit, or pay a fine? Still forced patronage of private industry...

Well, it could be argued (and will likely be) that the tax (what you refer to as a penalty) is an incentive to enter into the transaction, but in fact no American will be forced into purchasing insurance.

That's not my argument - its just an argument that will likely be put forth.

This is an alternative argument to what Hank posted above (that by requiring all people to be insured Congress is actually protecting the insurance market and the participants in it).

[ASUMountaineer]

Hmm...interesting. So, you either purchase from for-profit, non-profit, or pay a fine? Still forced patronage of private industry...

Well, it could be argued (and will likely be) that the tax (what you refer to as a penalty--how else should it be referred to? even Dems supporting the bill called it a "fine.") is an incentive to enter into the transaction, but in fact no American will be forced into purchasing insurance.

That's not my argument - its just an argument that will likely be put forth.

And it's bogus for anyone to make that argument. Regardless, you have to pay something (a policy or a fine/tax/penalty) for a product you may not want to purchase--and, from a private company. Citizens right to choose not to purchase a product from a private industry (and thus spend nothing) will be gone...they'll pay one way or another.

[danefan]

Well, it could be argued (and will likely be) that the tax (what you refer to as a penalty--how else should it be referred to? even Dems supporting the bill called it a "fine.") is an incentive to enter into the transaction, but in fact no American will be forced into purchasing insurance.

That's not my argument - its just an argument that will likely be put forth.

And it's bogus for anyone to make that argument. Regardless, you have to pay something (a policy or a fine/tax/penalty) for a product you may not want to purchase--and, from a private company. Citizens right to choose not to purchase a product from a private industry (and thus spend nothing) will be gone...they'll pay one way or another.

Its not necssarily a bogus argument, but it is an expansion on what has ever been really done before. There is a reason Congress put the so-called penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. Its based on long-standing Supreme Court precadent holding that Congress has the power to tax in order to accomplish regulatory goals and to also provide tax incentives for certain activities. Its somewhat reverse logic, but the "penalty" here has the same effect as Congress providing a tax benefit to those that purchase health insurance. In the end people have an incentive to buy health insurance, which accomplishes a regulatory goal.

Like I said before though, the primary authority for this is the regulation of interstate commerce, which is a pretty strong argument.

[ASUMountaineer]

And it's bogus for anyone to make that argument. Regardless, you have to pay something (a policy or a fine/tax/penalty) for a product you may not want to purchase--and, from a private company. Citizens right to choose not to purchase a product from a private industry (and thus spend nothing) will be gone...they'll pay one way or another.

Its not necssarily a bogus argument, but it is an expansion on what has ever been really done before. There is a reason Congress put the so-called penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. Its based on long-standing Supreme Court precadent holding that Congress has the power to tax in order to accomplish regulatory goals and to also provide tax incentives for certain activities. Its somewhat reverse logic, but the "penalty" here has the same effect as Congress providing a tax benefit to those that purchase health insurance. In the end people have an incentive to buy health insurance, which accomplishes a regulatory goal.

Like I said before though, the primary authority for this is the regulation of interstate commerce, which is a pretty strong argument.

I can't question you on the tax code, and I only made a B in Con Law. My argument would be the "tax incentive" for certain activities...the activity here is existing.

[Skjellyfetti]

I can't question you on the tax code, and I only made a B in Con Law. My argument would be the "tax incentive" for certain activities...the activity here is existing.

No, the activity warranting a fine would be lacking health insurance.

[Col Hogan]

I can't question you on the tax code, and I only made a B in Con Law. My argument would be the "tax incentive" for certain activities...the activity here is existing.

No, the activity warranting a fine would be lacking health insurance.

So if one can be fined for failing to purchase something (in this case, health insurance), then I assume a state or city could legally tax/fine a citizen for failing to purchase something like....say...a gun...if the legislature so chose...and that would be Constitutionally sound in your opinion...

[AZGrizFan]

No, the activity warranting a fine would be lacking health insurance.

So if one can be fined for failing to purchase something (in this case, health insurance), then I assume a state or city could legally tax/fine a citizen for failing to purchase something like....say...a gun...if the legislature so chose...and that would be Constitutionally sound in your opinion...

Ahhh....the dreaded "slippery slope" argument.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, the activity warranting a fine would be lacking health insurance.

So if one can be fined for failing to purchase something (in this case, health insurance), then I assume a state or city could legally tax/fine a citizen for failing to purchase something like....say...a gun...if the legislature so chose...and that would be Constitutionally sound in your opinion...

Yeah, if there was a law saying "all citizens 18+ must own a gun (with exceptions) and we'll help you out with a tax credit if you can't afford it." Silly example. But, yes. That's just my lay opinion, though. danefan would be able to give a more legit opinion.

[ASUMountaineer]

I can't question you on the tax code, and I only made a B in Con Law. My argument would be the "tax incentive" for certain activities...the activity here is existing.

No, the activity warranting a fine would be lacking health insurance.

I disagree (imagine that ). The activity being regulated is existing, you exist therefore you must pay for something (policy or fine) because you exist.

I'm glad to see you've become such a proponent of big business.

[Col Hogan]

So if one can be fined for failing to purchase something (in this case, health insurance), then I assume a state or city could legally tax/fine a citizen for failing to purchase something like....say...a gun...if the legislature so chose...and that would be Constitutionally sound in your opinion...

Yeah, if there was a law saying "all citizens 18+ must own a gun (with exceptions) and we'll help you out with a tax credit if you can't afford it." Silly example. But, yes. That's just my lay opinion, though. danefan would be able to give a more legit opinion.

Why is it silly...because you don't support it?

It's as AZ said, the slippery slope...that you support...

[Skjellyfetti]

I disagree. The activity being regulated is existing, you exist therefore you must pay for something (policy or fine) because you exist.

I'm glad to see you've become such a proponent of big business. The insurance industry thanks you.

The activity being regulated with an incentive or a fine is having health insurance or not having health insurance. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, though.

Yeah, I am being a proponent of big business on this, I admit. I'm a capitalist... though I do favor more regulation than most. I'm also being an advocate of personal responsibility because I don't think people lacking health insurance should be able to just show up at the emergency room and make the prices higher for the rest of us. Seems like these are the reasons someone would be without health insurance: You either can't afford health insurance (now fixed), you have a condition that makes you unable to be insured (now fixed), you are a member of a group like the Amish (exempted), or you are a lazy, cheap asshole and a drag on the system (now fixed)

[ASUMountaineer]

I disagree. The activity being regulated is existing, you exist therefore you must pay for something (policy or fine) because you exist.

I'm glad to see you've become such a proponent of big business. The insurance industry thanks you.

The activity being regulated with an incentive or a fine is having health insurance or not having health insurance. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, though.

Yeah, I am being a proponent of big business on this, I admit. I'm a capitalist... though I do favor more regulation than most. I'm also being an advocate of personal responsibility because I don't think people lacking health insurance should be able to just show up at the emergency room and make the prices higher for the rest of us. Seems like these are the reasons someone would be without health insurance: You either can't afford health insurance (now fixed), you have a condition that makes you unable to be insured (now fixed), or you are a lazy ******* and a drag on the system (now fixed).

Like I said, semantics. All I see is that the fact I exist in America means I have to purchase a product from a private company or pay a fine. But, I agree to disagree.

There are people who choose to not pay for insurance and pay out of pocket if they get sick (like I did after graduating college). You may not ever consider doing that, but it does happen.

I agree with you that people lacking insurance should not be able to just show up at the emergency room and make the prices higher for all of us. I also agree that something needed to be done about health insurance, but I don't think bill is going to be nearly as effective (and economical) as the supporters say. There are many things that could have been done without forcing people to patronize private industry (or pay a fine). This is all subjective, and clearly my opinion. It's not worth much, but oh well. I doubt we'll agree on this either.

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah, if there was a law saying "all citizens 18+ must own a gun (with exceptions) and we'll help you out with a tax credit if you can't afford it." Silly example. But, yes. That's just my lay opinion, though. danefan would be able to give a more legit opinion.

Why is it silly...because you don't support it?

It's as AZ said, the slippery slope...that you support...

Do you support it? Do many people support it?

I've never heard of a serious idea to require everyone to own a gun... so it seems pretty fucking silly to me.

[FargoBison]

I don't really know about this, this bill is really in some grey areas. It will make for an interesting case but probably a very close decision ruling in favor of its constitutionality. Just my gut, it is probably unconstitutional but it is setup in a way that will make it hard to overturn.

What this will do is extend the debate probably into November, which is great for the Republicans, and a close decision will make the Democrats look even worse, especially if they continue in struggling with selling this bill to the public.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Why is it silly...because you don't support it?

It's as AZ said, the slippery slope...that you support...

Do you support it? Do many people support it?

I've never heard of a serious idea to require everyone to own a gun... so it seems pretty fucking silly to me.

How fucking silly would it have sounded in the 50's & 60's & 70's to the majority of people that they would be REQUIRED to have health insurance or pay a fine? Pretty fucking silly.

I thought I had read a story a few years back about some small town requiring guy ownership but I don't know if it was even here in the U.S. but I think it exists out there somewhere.

[Skjellyfetti]

Do you support it? Do many people support it?

I've never heard of a serious idea to require everyone to own a gun... so it seems pretty **** silly to me.

How **** silly would it have sounded in the 50's & 60's & 70's to the majority of people that they would be REQUIRED to have health insurance or pay a fine? Pretty **** silly.

I thought I had read a story a few years back about some small town requiring guy ownership but I don't know if it was even here in the U.S. but I think it exists out there somewhere.

Yup, looks like you're right. And they provide exceptions including those that can't afford. So, I certainly think it's Constitutional.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 36862.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you, Col.?

[FargoBison]

How **** silly would it have sounded in the 50's & 60's & 70's to the majority of people that they would be REQUIRED to have health insurance or pay a fine? Pretty **** silly.

I thought I had read a story a few years back about some small town requiring guy ownership but I don't know if it was even here in the U.S. but I think it exists out there somewhere.

Yup, looks like you're right. And they provide exceptions including those that can't afford. So, I certainly think it's Constitutional.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 36862.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you, Col.?

That doesn't involve the federal government, if the federal government made this decision we would be having the same discussion in regards to its constitutionality as we are having with health care.