One foot in the grave for ObamaCare in 11th Circuit

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: I'm not "anti-profit"...except when it comes to health care... Then, I want a single-payer, medicare type plan FOR ALL.

Simple...

I don't want your single payer FOR ME. I don't trust the government to be the decision making authority for my health.

That's why it's not so simple.

Do you pay your own medical expenses, no insurance? If you do then you do have all the "decision making authority" otherwise you are delusional if you think the insurance company doesn't have the "decision". You are not really that clueless are you?

The rumors it's demise seem to be premature...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/29/health ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Wow...

"We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause," said the three-judge panel on Wednesday, in a 64-page opinion."

Doesn't sound so dead to me...

Particularly when one of the judges who upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate is a Bush appointed former Scalia clerk and leader of the Federalist Society and a favorite of Scalia. He had this to say about the individual mandate and the economic activity/inactivity argument:

No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care, as self-insurance and private insurance are two forms of action for addressing the same risk. Each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce. In affidavits filed in this case, the individual plaintiffs all mention the need
to make current changes in their spending and saving practices to account for the need to pay for medical insurance in the future. Saving to buy insurance or to self-insure, as these affidavits attest, involves action. E.g., Ceci May 27, 2011 Decl., ¶ 7 (“Due to the added financial pressure [of the mandate], I have cut back on discretionary spending, such as costs associated with entertainment, like going to the movies, a restaurant, or sporting events.”); Hyder May 28, 2011 Decl., ¶ 8 (same).

So how long before we hear sputtering about the "regressive nightmare"?

chirp, chirp

poubelle wrote: Do you pay your own medical expenses, no insurance? If you do then you do have all the "decision making authority" otherwise you are delusional if you think the insurance company doesn't have the "decision". You are not really that clueless are you?

I'm not clueless at all, I've had more experience with medical coverage than I'd ever hoped to have including working for some of the insurance companies on their claims software.

I have the option to choose my coverage after reading the coverage details. I can make an informed choice regarding which company gets my buisness.

Yes, the insurance has the final decision regarding what to pay. That decision is driven by competition from other insurance companies.

I trust the free market to drive better coverage than the federal government could ever provide. Given the current state of our government, anything they control immediately turns to a steaming pile of bullcrap.

I don't care if the government requires us to carry coverage - I will do it anyway. I do care if the government gets into the business of deciding what that coverage has to be. They are not qualified to make those decisions.

Anyone that believes getting the federal government involved in decisions is a good thing is absolutely clueless - and blind.

Some additional food for thought from the decision:

"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?" he asked. "Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment."

We know that the preferred method of usurping power is interpretation rather than asking permission from the people. That has proven an effective means over the past 100 years and it is hoped by those who seek to consolidate all power of governance within the general government that it will continue to be allowed in the future.

I have a few questions for you Dog. If Sutton's logic is sound, why would Congress not then also have the authority to limit the damage awards in a lawsuit? Don't such awards also "affect commerce" to a certain degree? If all that is required is that the legislation can be tied to any effect on the commerce, what limits remain in force on the general government?

The "free market" has but one goal: "Shareholder profits"... Anything that gets in the way of that, is anathema to its very existence. That means that the "death panels" are already in place, and run by some minimum-wage morons who answer the phones and get bonuses based on how much they can deny treatment; lose paperwork; wear you down by drawing out the process; and declaring anything short of "two aspirins and call me in the morning" as "experimental", and therefore not covered...

Spare me your "free market" medicine... Medicare works very nicely, thank you...and if we had Universal Coverage, we could get the profit-driven whores out of our medical care.

LadyJazzer wrote: Medicare works very nicely, thank you...and if we had Universal Coverage, we could get the profit-driven whores out of our medical care.

Medicare is a financial black hole, and if you remove the profit from healthcare, you'll remove the incentive to improve. If we get universal coverage forced down our throats, we'll have only second rate clinics to rely on to pull it back out while we're choking.