Unconstitutionalcare

A little background I know on one of the judges might be helpful. Joel Dubina, co-author of the opinion, is from Montgomery, Alabama. He is the father of Martha Roby, republican U.S. House of Representatives congresswoman for Mobile. Dubina is very close personal friends with a federal judge named Mark Fuller who is best know for having former Alabama governor Don Seigelman placed on handcuffs and shackles immediately upon his conviction rather than allow him to spend a day with his family before turning himself in for sentencing (which is the general approach for non-violent crimes when the defendant has been out on bail). Dubina and Fuller are very close to Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama (after failing to gain confirmation to the federal bench based among other things on his use of offensive racial slurs in the office), and also to former Alabama Attorney General and current 11th Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a highly controversial appointee to the federal bench. His brother-in-law is a local judge who once asked me if a certain writer formerly the New York Times that he was familiar with and enjoyed reading was "a little liberal, though, isn't he?"

If this has already been covered I apologize.

 

Carlton, I give you credit for admitting the GOP's wrongdoing on healthcare. Though what ultimately passed was something that Republicans would have accepted when the Clintons tried this in 1993.

How about this idea: create a set of federal coverage standards (X% must be covered by Y date, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, etc.) and let each state develop its own system to meet those standards. If a state wants something like Mitt Romney signed in MA, that's OK. If a state wants a single-payer system like Vermont's governor signed a few months ago, that's OK too. The key is that each state is designing its own system, rather than a federally-mandated, one-size-fits-all system.

Would that have been more acceptable to you?

 

I guess I'm not sure how you'd presume to fix a problem without knowing how it became a problem.

 

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

 

Obama did offer them a place at the table. The GOP's lone suggestion was capping malpractice awards.

In other words, screwing the little guy. Again.

 

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

 

But that's what employer-based insurance does. You all go into the same risk pool. But when 20-somethings opt out, then prices go up because the insurance companies realize that 20-somethings opt out.

This is actually the case with any insurance pool, YF, even in an absolutely free market economy with no government interference. Insurance companies know that people with hidden concerns opt in, and those without concerns opt out. Even if they seem exactly the same on the surface. It's a pure market failure and Exhibit A for government intervention into an otherwise free-market economy.

You won't like a lot of what it has to say, but this book has a pretty good chapter on adverse selection, which it calls "hidden costs" to make it more palatable for non-economists:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Markets-Fail-Economic-Calamities/dp/0374173206/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313249330&sr=1-1

 

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it. I get the trepidation about overly regulated markets, but it seems to me that our current health care system is irreparably broken. So are we just supposed to wait for the innovators at insurance companies to fix this?

 

Because of the complexity of society, there are market failures in which the government has to step in and correct. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not to be taken seriously. Even the staunchest serious conservative thinker would agree wholeheartedly.

 

I would have thought someone who likes to tout his business savvy would have understood what insurance actually does.

This is the same bone-headed logic that said I should get to invest my Social Security money, because it's "mine."

 

As far as conservatives are concerned, it's not broken. The current system punishes the sick, the poor and the unfortunate. What's not for a conservative to love?

 

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.