oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Two Possible Paths to the Public Option

     .
    The have mores bring lawsuits while those in need get screwed?


    After the Michigan ruling last week upholding the mandate we now have this other challenge that came on the wire today ...

     


    And just over a year ago, at the old stomping grounds, I had posted the following in my blog:

    There are some interesting comments there in the thread. And thanks to Josh and the staff for maintaining the links as active and all.

    Now onward , , ,

    The first path to establishing the public option:

    If the individual mandate is eventually ruled as unconstitutional under the frame work of the Commerce Clause and people are forced to buy a policy that costs more than 8 percent of his or her income, it could open the door for Congress to revisit the law and provide for a public option.

    From Maggie Mahar after the Michigan ruling last week upholding the mandate


    The Individual Mandate Maggie Mahar,
    The Century Foundation, 10/12/2010

    Last week, a federal District Court judge in Michigan rejected a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).This is the first time that a court has gotten to the merits of the case against the ACA.  Below, excepts from analysis by Timothy Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law, explaining the decision. Jost’s piece, titled“A Victory for Health Reform and Good Law” appeared on the HealthAffairs blog today. Continue Reading on the Taking Note blog.



    The following excerpt is Maggie (in italics) speaking of excepts from a analysis by Timothy Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law:

    “To understand this controversy, it is necessary to understand what the minimum coverage requirement actually says and why Congress adopted it,”  Jost writes.
     
    He then offers a clear, concise definition of who is subject to the mandate to buy insurance:
    .
    • If you are not covered by health insurance from your job and are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid;
    • If you do not have a religious objection to having health insurance or belong to a health care sharing ministry;
    • If you have been uninsured for 3 months or more;
    • If you are not a Native American;
    • If you earn more than the tax filing limit (currently $18,700 for a couple);
    • If you can find a health insurance policy for less than 8 percent of your income; and if it does not otherwise cause you a hardship, you must purchase a basic, high cost-sharing health insurance policy or pay a tax penalty.
    .
    Note that no one will be forced to buy a policy that costs more than 8 percent of his or her income. Here, I would add that if too many Americans cannot find policies that cover the minimum benefits required under the law, and cost less than 8 percent of their income, Congress is likely to reconsider the public option.  This is why insurers have already begun to cut administrative costs, while looking for ways to provide incentives that will encourage health care providers to be more efficient.  They know that if they can’t make insurance affordable, they’ll soon find themselves competing with a public plan that doesn’t have to provide profits for shareholders,  lobby Congress, or pay executives seven-digit salaries.

     

    (Note: Those are my highlights and undelines.)

    The second path to the public option:

    For those individual states (such as the 20 states in the Florida case) that are allowed to refrain and not conform to the existing law that includes the individual mandate, the following could happen.

    Under the existing law the Department of Health and Human Services at the direction of the President could be directed and mandated to establish within those states federal health department offices that would be separate from the state's health departments. These federal offices can then offer the public the Government Assistance Subsidies (here's an improved updated calculator), and offer policies established on a federal Insurance Exchange that would also include a public option to compete with the for-profit insurance companies in that particular state. If any for-profit companies wish to encluded on the Insurance Exchange they can do so in the meet the criteria as set forth in the law.

    Only time will tell how all of this political posturing will shake out.

    But one thing is for sure, the lawyers are dancing in their suits.

    Ain't that right DD?

    ~OGD~
    .

    Comments


    The pinnacle of the anti-health reform pyramid . . .

    One needs to go no further than here . . .



    And below are the various lawsuits either pending to be heard, those allowed to proceed, and/or those dismissed:

    Note: The links below will take you to the The Independent Women's Forum "Health Care Lawsuits" site that is a basically a front for the Heritage Foundation. Here is the Wiki source of funding link of the IWF and this IWF.org should NOT to be confused with the International Women's Forum.


    March 2010:

    April 2010:

    • 4/02/10 – Walters v. Holder – case filed
    • 4/07/10 – Calvey v. Obama – case filed
    • 4/08/10 – Shreeve v. Obama – case filed
    • 4/14/10 – Taitz v. Obama – case dismissed*
    • 4/12/10 – Goudy-Bachman v. DHHS – case filed
    • 4/22/10 – Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, LLC v. Sebelius – case filed*
    • 4/27/10 – Burlsworth v. Holder – case filed*

    May 2010:

    June 2010:

    July 2010:

    August 2010:

    September 2010:

    *cases no longer active


    Can you imagine the monies flowing from the corporate insurance greed merchants through the hands of the above mentioned conservative organizations to help push these suits through court?

    It's mind numbing...

    ~OGD~


    Not nearly as much as the corporate insurance greed merchants put into Democratic coffers to get it passed in the first place. You genuinely think insurance companies are fighting a mandate that everyone must purchase their product? In some alternative bizzaro universe maybe. The insurance companies aren't the ones fighting this - they got a multi-billion dollar payday - their stocks didn't soar on HCR's approval because it was a bad thing for them.

    But pro vs. anti sniping over the recently passed legislation (not "health reform") aside, why the hell would people be suing Geithner (or Holder) over the HCR bill? And Orly Taitz is on the list too. Wasn't her deal birther nonsense?


    Maybe you should invest your own time . . .

    Why the hell would people be suing Geithner (or Holder) over the HCR bill?

    Those are actual links up there. Take the following case as one example -- try this one:

    You see, if you really wish to answer your own questions maybe you should try following those links to the actual petition PDFs. And read the complaint. Then if you still have questions you can always contact the attorney(s) directly at the contact information provided on page 34 of the complaint.

    In closing: Other than that -- you in particular -- are on your own.

    ~OGD~


    I have to be honest. The inclusion of Orly Taitz on that list kind of discredited it in my mind ... saw no reason to waste more time on it than jot off a comment inquiring to your sourcing. Nice to see you can (sort of) explain the Geithner thing. You could have just said "Because they are challenging taxation and that's Geithner's job." ... but I'm not sure you read your own links deeply enough to understand that.

    I really don't have time to follow up every damn thing you decide to copy-pasta. That's why there is a little comment box down here with which I can make inquiries.


    Hey . . .

     

    You'll find my reply below Dick's following post.

    Oooo ... copy-pasta? That's cute.

    ~OGD~


    The lawyers are dancing in their suits.

    You betchya Ducky!!

    Again, thank you for all the info.

     


    Hey KGB... Naw . . .

    It's so much nicer to see you doing your own leg work to find out about the Geithner thing. And if I were you, and I'm quite happy I'm not,  I wouldn't be so smug thinking that I didn't read the particulars of those lawsuits.

    This issue will all come down to one over-riding principle and that is the question as to whether or not the Commerce Clause can be used in relationship to the mandate requiring a person to purchase a health insurance policy.

    From the WSJ Law Blog:

     

    Second, and perhaps more importantly, Vinson declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that Congress, in passing the individual mandate, overstepped the authority granted to it by the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Wrote Vinson:

    At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call. . .  This case law is instructive, but ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before. The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent.

    Vinson noted the difference between regulating an economic activity and attempting to regulate an economic non-activity. Most Commerce Clause cases deal with the former, not the latter.

    [I]n this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.

    . . .

    Of course, to say that something is “novel” and “unprecedented” does not necessarily mean that it is “unconstitutional” and “improper.” There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.

     

     

    Here's the entire 65-page opinion:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/101410healthcareruling.pdf


    And about Oily? There's a total of nineteen (19) other separate lawsuits and Oily Titz' on that list "kind of discredited the list" in your mind? No doubt I find her a certifiable whack-job related to her birther BS but she did file a challenge on the basis of the constitutionality of the health reform legislation.

    Joining a distinguished group of state attorneys general in challenging the constitutionality of the health reform legislation, now comes Orly Taitz, who in a new federal court filing argues that the bill violates her "right" to practice dentistry. Link @ Muckraker


    Her challenge was dismissed-- but her constutional right to file was valid.

    ~OGD~




    Actually, thanks for that. Really. I truthfully am too busy to do much research right now and don't know much about the specifics of the challenges. I don't have energy to process all of this tonight - but I will.

    BTW. I'z just playing snarky ... you seem to be one of the few who can play that game without freaking out. So, I take advantage sometimes.

    [Edit: Really?? Taitz actually challenged HCR too ... nice to see she did it in a consistently loony fashion. Her stuff didn't have any links in your list, I just assumed it was her birther shit ... off base on that one!]

     


    Latest Comments