Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[LA Ute]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just wait 'till he starts quoting Borges to you.

[Uncle Ted]

My wife and I pay about $14,000/year for insurance, and have each averaged 1.5 doctor visits/year, all routine. While I'd like to pay less, there were many years in which I probably received more than I paid (lots of sinus procedures and a badly broken arm, not to mention six babies) so I'm not all that resentful. Plus if Mrs. PAC makes good on her threat to sideswipe me on one of our downhill runs, I'm getting it all back.

Now let's assume for a moment that you are an average american and make about $50,000 per year. Your health insurance would be about 28% of your income. In addition, Obamacare adds new regulations on your health care that will most likely make it rise. For example, you now are required to pick up the tab on insuring your kids to age 26. It may not be so far fetched to believe that your health insurance might cost $20,000 per year in the near future or 40% of your income. This "mandate" is essentially a very regressive tax.

Of course, the argument people like to throw out is their employer is paying for a good share of their health insurance out of the goodness of their heart and, therefore, it costing them very little. People that think this are really stupid. If your employer is large enough they are required to provide you with a health insurance plan. Instead they could have given you a huge salary increase. In short, health insurance is part of your compensation package but now they would rather give you a very large salary increase instead. Also, depending on your employer the choices of plans may be very limited. For example, maybe you, unlike a lot of your fellow employees, exercise, eat right and don't smoke. In other words, you would benefit financially from a low cost, high deductible plan. Your employer, however, only offers an "one size fits all" plan in which you get to help pay for all the medical bills of your unhealthy co-wokers because they are unwilling to do what it takes to change their lifestyle (in not all but a lot of cases).

It is ironic that employers once used benefits like health insurance to attract the employees they needed to work for them over their competition. Now that the government is requiring companies to provide health insurance the companies are looking at how they can provide the minimal amount insurance to cut their costs even to the point of not providing insurance and simply paying the tax. In addition, employers may use factors like health more often in selecting employees given that hiring an unhealthy individual may drive their group insurance plan's premiums higher and, therefore, reduce profits. I am sure they won't admit this if asked, however. It is also ironic that the democrats have created, it seems, the most regressive tax in U.S. history which may hit the middle class very hard and may cause employers to discriminate more in hiring.

[All-American]

Significant? This one, Harlan in Plessy v Ferguson, Scalia in Lawrence, Holmes in Lochner, there are lots.

I notice that two of those dissents are opinions for what would eventually become anti precedents. It's fairly obvious why those should be considered significant: they eventually became (more or less) good law. Even Scalia's Lawrence opinion, while reviled by many, gains whatever significance it does because so many still agree with its sentiments. But you're saying that this dissent will be one of the least respected opinions of the period? History shows that a dissenting opinion without respect tends to be forgotten. It seems odd to suppose that this one is somehow so poorly constructed and will be so poorly regarded as to not only reverse the natural life course of an ill-regarded dissenting opinion, but actually elevate the dissent in the ranks of infamy to rival Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and who knows what else.

[calicoug]

I notice that two of those dissents are opinions for what would eventually become anti precedents.

Then I suppose you noticed two aren't.

It's fairly obvious why those should be considered significant: they eventually became (more or less) good law. Even Scalia's Lawrence opinion, while reviled by many, gains whatever significance it does because so many still agree with its sentiments. But you're saying that this dissent will be one of the least respected opinions of the period? History shows that a dissenting opinion without respect tends to be forgotten. It seems odd to suppose that this one is somehow so poorly constructed and will be so poorly regarded as to not only reverse the natural life course of an ill-regarded dissenting opinion, but actually elevate the dissent in the ranks of infamy to rival Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and who knows what else.

I think there are lots of reasons this will be reviled (though I agree Bush v Gore will clearly be ahead of this dissent on that list). First, keep in mind that virtually all academics believed this was a clear cut issue in the government's favor (on both the Commerce Clause and Tax Powers questions). They tend to be the ones who write about these issues and, consequently, frame them. You'll see quite a bit of publishings decrying what the dissent was promoting.

Second, the Court is far more politicized in the past 15 years than any other time in its history. That means people (including those in Senate hearings) will focus heavily on the fact that the Court was just one vote away from tipping towards idiocy. That will demand that this ruling especially (because of the scope of the Constitutional questions raised in it) will get lots of scrutiny.

Third, you are overstating your case on dissents being rapidly ignored and forgotten. They are often cited in legal briefs (particularly in this world of 5-4 decisions) and carry much more weight today than perhaps any other time in our country's history (refer to point 2 above).

Fourth, this particular case was followed as closely as almost any other legal case I can recall in my life with the notable exception of Bush v Gore. Far more people are familiar with the dissent (note how much discussion it has had on here, then compare that level of discussion with other legal opinions from the Court in recent history) and are polarized for or against it. The dissent represents a movement in American political history that I think will also go down in the books as a "wrong turn for American politics."

[All-American]

Third, you are overstating your case on dissents being rapidly ignored and forgotten. "

You misunderstand my case, then. My point is that dissents (and the legal arguments they embody) tend either to become accepted as prevailing law or fade away into obscurity. You've suggested that this dissent will do neither-- and not only will it run against the trend, it will be among the most reviled decisions the court has made in decades. It's a very unusual claim. I don't think there is a single example in the history of the Court of any dissenting opinion doing what you think this one will do.

[dabrockster]

Good read.. I am also confused on why the GOP has not ceased on this and the tax increases we will all have.. Increase of taxes should be the nail in the coffin for Obama, but I am seeing very little out there about this.. Or am I just out of the loop..

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...d-trust?page=2

[Mormon Red Death]

Increasing access (primary care) does increase costs.

[U-Ute]

Increasing access (primary care) does increase costs.

I didn't read the paper, but the quote in the link seems a bit misleading. Maybe I misread it.

It seems pretty obvious that people who go see a doctor are more likely to have something wrong. That's why they go see a doctor: because they have something wrong. In some cases, it does end up requiring some sort of procedure that requires an inpatient stay.

For overall cost impact, you would have to compare those numbers against people who don't have insurance and don't go see a doctor (because they are young and healthy).

Or compare it with people who don't go see a doctor and have some sort of catastrophic health care event.

The other way I can read it is doctors tend to find something wrong even if you just go in for an annual checkup. This could be a side effect of defensive medicine.

[LA Ute]

Increasing access (primary care) does increase costs.

It's generally accepted that preventative care is inherently more expensive because of all the testing that is done. (Which has nothing to do with fear of lawsuits. )

[Surfah]

Papa John's is going to cost more.

Thanks Obamacare!

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...-to-obamacare/

[U-Ute]

Papa John's is going to cost more.

Thanks Obamacare!

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...-to-obamacare/

More expensive pizza may actually help our health care in the long run.

[falafel]

Papa John's is going to cost more.

Thanks Obamacare!

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...-to-obamacare/

I stopped ordering from Papa John's when Dominos overhauled their crust.

[Surfah]

I stopped ordering from Papa John's when Dominos overhauled their crust.

Papa John's has a coupon here for 50% off when the nationals win a game and scored five runs.

[falafel]

Papa John's has a coupon here for 50% off when the nationals win a game and scored five runs.

Hardees used to give everyone with a ticket stub free fries when the Jazz won and kept their opponents under 100 points.

[Mormon Red Death]

Hardees used to give everyone with a ticket stub free fries when the Jazz won and kept their opponents under 100 points.

Tough d means fries free.

Sent from my SGH-T839 using Tapatalk 2