Part of Health Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Dec 13, 2010

Insurance rates are already going up, making access to health care even more difficult for many Americans than it was before Obamacare became the law of the land.

I salute this judge for throwing out the mandate---not only are rates too high for many people to afford, but forcing them to buy insurance anyway is adding insult to injury. I hope the ruling stands.

allnurses Guide · Dec 13, 2010

I don't think we need insurance. I think we need guaranteed healthcare like improved Medicare for everone.

nicurn001 · Dec 13, 2010

If you want , for example , to be able to have health insurance , without the no preexisting conditions clause , then because you are increasing the risk that insurers cover , you have to accept that the pool of insurered has to be increased , to spread the risk , therefore you have to have mandate health insurance .

Please remember , now you may be healthy and feel no need for insurance , but once you have become diagnosed with a condition , without the no preexisting clause it is too late for you to get health insurance and then who is going to finance your care? , in many cases the answer is the tax payer .

elkpark · Dec 13, 2010

Without a mandate I think insurance companies will increase premiums and find additional ways to exclude people from coverage who cost them money because they have to pay for their care.

I firmly believe that the for-profit insurance companies will do this with or without a mandate -- it's what they do. All the new law and the mandate does is hand them a huge new pool of predominantly younger, healthier individuals who are forced against their will to buy their products and boost their profits. I guarantee you they'll still find a way to get rid of the people who actually cost them money ...

I don't really see how the mandate can be constitutional, not that I'm any authority on such matters.

I agree that things in healthcare won't really get better until we get the private, for-profit insurance companies out of the equation (or, at least, out of the driver's seat ...)

Chico David, BSN, RN · Dec 14, 2010

I'm one of the people who has been a critic of the law, and especially the mandate, but from the left - believing that it makes better sense to do what nearly all the rest of the developed world does: take for profit insurance out of the central role and make health coverage a public good like police and fire protection.

Interesting historical truth: The idea of the mandate was a Republican idea. It was part of the program on which Bob Dole campaigned for president in 1996 During the earlier debates over the Clinton health care plan, Republicans had proposed the individual mandate as the conservative alternative. But once the Dems adopted the idea, then it suddenly became evil overnight and their former support for it became "inoperative". Any facts that don't fit the narrative just disappear.

FLmomof5 · Dec 14, 2010

The mandate is unconstitutional....and it would never have worked anyway. The young can choose to pay for expensive (as a % of income) insurance or pay a "fine" aka: tax. The annual fine is less that a month or two of insurance. With the pre-existing clause in Obamacare, folks will purposely wait until they are sick to get insurance.....which will bankrupt the insurance companies.

For all that think that national healthcare is a solution, go check out Illinois who is now medicare/medicaid bankrupt and denying care because they cannot afford to pay for it. Pharmacies are going OOB because they aren't getting paid in a timely fashion.

For those that believe in guaranteed healthcare....how are YOU going to pay for it? THAT has always been the issue. To pay for it, you have to heavily tax society's producers to cover those who are not. I have paid over $14K out of my income so far, to the fed gov't, this year...of which $7500 is income tax. That is just me. My husband has his own...(haven't checked out his LES yet). I have been paying into SS, medicare/medicaid for 28 years and for a considerable amount....yet, by the time I retire, M/M will be broke and so will SS. This is WHY the Republicans thought of privatizing it....If *I* had invested all that money myself, I would at least have had SOMETHING to show for it! Instead, politicians at BOTH ends of the spectrum, raided those accounts and bankrupted this country.

Although I think the guy at Wikileaks should be hung, his exposure of the classified documents have shown: (1) they actually did find WMD in Iraq (not that the lib media would highlight that!) and (2) all politicians will say whatever you want to hear to get elected and then will pay back those who funded their campaigns. BOTH parties. :flamesonb

elkpark · Dec 14, 2010

I'm one of the people who has been a critic of the law, and especially the mandate, but from the left - believing that it makes better sense to do what nearly all the rest of the developed world does: take for profit insurance out of the central role and make health coverage a public good like police and fire protection.

Exactly. This was something I kept pointing out, during the development and debate of the final bill that got passed, when opponents of reform would point to poll results and equate opposition to the proposed bill with opposition to reform (doing anything). Lots of us objected to the proposed bill, as it developed, because it didn't go far enough. When considering the poll results that showed significant opposition to the proposed bill, one had to keep in mind that the "anti" numbers included not only conservatives who objected to making any signficant changes to the existing system, but also those of us coming from the left who objected to the bill because it would change so little.

elkpark · Dec 14, 2010

Although I think the guy at Wikileaks should be hung, his exposure of the classified documents have shown: (1) they actually did find WMD in Iraq (not that the lib media would highlight that!)

There was nothing to "highlight." The documents related to the war released by Wikileaks in October included some references to American troops finding a few shells that tested positive for traces of chemical agents. The shells were old, deteriorated, and appeared to have been abandoned a long time ago. Big whoop. (Of course, I'm well aware that that's not how the right-wing websites and blogs see it ... :rolleyes: )

Not that I see what connection that has to the topic at hand, and I apologize for continuing off-topic (but didn't want to just let that statement stand without a response).

nicurn001 · Dec 14, 2010

the mandate is unconstitutional....and it would never have worked anyway. the young can choose to pay for expensive (as a % of income) insurance or pay a "fine" aka: tax. the annual fine is less that a month or two of insurance. with the pre-existing clause in obamacare, folks will purposely wait until they are sick to get insurance.....which will bankrupt the insurance companies. do you think the pre existing clause in " obamacare " a good thing ?. if the mandate isremoved the insurance companies will get the preexisting clause removed ( they will say and because of the way insurance works , i agree ,that offering insurance under these conditions would not be economically viable for them ) .so the option for the young to buy insurance when they have a preexisting condition will be unavailable and we the tax payers will be on the hook for their care if they cannot pay ( who else would be left to pay ? ).
for all that think that national healthcare is a solution, go check out illinois who is now medicare/medicaid bankrupt and denying care because they cannot afford to pay for it. pharmacies are going oob because they aren't getting paid in a timely fashion. reading recently about arizona denying care to cancer patients , so states with mixed private / state paid healthcare are in the same boat .
for those that believe in guaranteed healthcare....how are you going to pay for it the same way as i am at present ie. by spreading the risk my payments are at present ,but rather than give my $$'s to a privatecorporation , driven by profit , that goes to it's corporate officers , my dollars will go via taxes to pay for the healthcare without having to pay to creat profit . that has always been the issue. to pay for it, you have to heavily tax society's producers to cover those who are not. i have paid over $14k out of my income so far, to the fed gov't, this year...of which $7500 is income tax. that is just me. my husband has his own...(haven't checked out his les yet). i have been paying into ss, medicare/medicaid for 28 years and for a considerable amount....yet, by the time i retire, m/m will be broke and so will ss. this is why the republicans thought of privatizing it....if *i* had invested all that money myself, i would at least have had something to show for it! instead, politicians at both ends of the spectrum, raided those accounts and bankrupted this country.or you may loose it all in the next financial meltdown , or to the next bernie madoff .
although i think the guy at wikileaks should be hung, his exposure of the classified documents have shown: (1) they actually did find wmd in iraq (not that the lib media would highlight that!) ( addressed by another contributor )and (2) all politicians will say whatever you want to hear to get elected and then will pay back those who funded their campaigns. both parties.upon this alone we can agree !! :flamesonb

insurance works by spreading risk , so with a benificial clause , such as no preexisting conditions exemption , you have increased the risk to insurers , their options to cover the risks are one of three

1 ) increase cost of premiums , to cover this greater risk .

2) maintain present premiums , but ensure more premium payers , from a low risk pool ie. mandate all to pay .

3 ) stop offering health care insurance .

if you remove the mandate , you will have to accept your poison , when the insurance industry chooses one of those options .

dzadzey, MSN, RN · Dec 28, 2010

The judges decision was the result of political shopping by Virginia's Attorney General. A decision which likely won't stand on appeal given the judge's blatant conflict of interest in the case. As for health care insurance rates going up, that's more a case of health insurance companies trying to maximize their profits before the legislations effects are actually felt in the insurance markets.

Katie82, RN · Jan 7, 2011

I don't think we need insurance. I think we need guaranteed healthcare like improved Medicare for everone.

Sounds great, but who is going to pay for it?