Two months from now, the Supreme Court will hear a case that will affect every citizen of this country for centuries to come. The ruling will either push the boundaries of government power even further in on us all, or they will re-assert the constitution’s specific and enumerated limitations on the federal government’s power.
The biggest obstacle to the "Affordable Care Act" becoming permanent law is the individual mandate… that is the portion of the law that requires every citizen buy insurance policies or pay a fine to the federal government.
In our 250+ year history, the federal government has never before forced citizens to participate in commerce with a third party. Many people (including the administration) claim precedence for this includes drivers being required to buy automobile insurance and automobile manufacturers being required to install seat belts in every car sold in America. The seat belt thing is nonsense and I can’t believe they even posit that as precedence (people are not all automobile manufacturers, nor are we all trying to sell goods to other people). The automobile insurance argument is also a flimsy argument (and has already been ridiculed by lower courts) as insurance laws are passed by the states and are therefore not subject to constitutional limitations on the federal government. Furthermore, powers not granted to the federal government in the constitution are specifically passed on to the states.
It should also be pointed out that automobile insurance is not a total mandate on every citizen. As a condition of driving on state and federal highways, you must buy automobile insurance. The health care bill sets a new and unprecedented standard that states that as a condition of being an American citizen and living and breathing, you must buy health insurance.
In a remarkable turn of events that bodes well for the proponents of the repeal of the health care reform bill, the Department of Justice has filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in regards to the mandate.
In the memo, the DOJ is essentially arguing that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, most of the bill could and should remain intact. The DOJ even goes so far as to claim it was the intention of congress that the bill should stand if any part was ruled unconstitutional. A dumbfounding and astounding claim that will likely be laughed out of the building if the mandate is indeed ruled unconstitutional. Why, you ask? The bill has no “severability” clause. That is, a clause that specifically states that if any part (or just specific parts) of the bill are ruled unconstitutional; the rest of the bill can still stand because the legislation is not dependant on any particular part (or it is dependant, as the case sometimes is). Congress has been including such clauses in legislation for 200 years. It is not the DOJ's place to determine congress's intent. Congress wrote a two thousand plus page document laying out their intent.
In fact, early versions of the health care reform bill itself did included “severability” clauses. Somewhere along the line, the clause was intentionally removed. More than likely, one of the architects of the bill or one of their many advisers pointed out how bad it would be for the medical business in this country (and therefore, patients) if insurance companies were forced to cover preexisting conditions and every other arbitrary procedure forced onto them without the increased pool of members to share the risk. They knew the bill would absolutely not work without the forced participation of as many people as possible. Regardless of why the “severability” language was removed, it WAS removed.
Imagine the DOJ lawyers trying to tell Supreme Court judges that congress intended the mandate to be severable after congress had specifically removed that clause. Add to that the many explicit statements of the bill’s architects that it will not work without the mandate, and you are left with the undeniable conclusion that the entire bill should (and almost certainly WILL) be struck down if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional. A proposition that seems more likely now that the DOJ appears to be hedging their bets in embarrassingly desperate legal memos.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, October 14, 2010
How you Were Lied to About the "Obscene Profits" of the Insurance Industry
A while back, I read this article which came as no surprise to me. Yet another industry being demonized by the president and liberals.
The president counted on the mainstream media not asking follow up questions or calling into question the truthfulness of his allegations, and they did not disappoint.
I’ll try to explain what the media has not in simplified terms. Insurance companies are not massive evil corporations whose only purpose is to bilk as much as they can from their members. In fact, most insurance companies are either non-profit or co-ops (the customers or members are the stock holders). Even the insurance companies who are for-profit must compete with the ones who are non-profit so if their premiums are not low enough to compete, they usually go out of business.
Every year, the insurance company’s actuarial staff estimates the coming year’s claims and administrative costs based on historical data, trends, new technology, new governmental regulations and other statistical variables. Good actuarial professionals have gotten very good at this and are rarely off by more than a few percentage points. This is important because it is those estimates upon which the members have their premiums set. The insurance company also negotiates the total amount hospitals and medical professionals can charge their members in order to try to keep costs down for the members. The larger the insurer, the more bargaining power they have.
In addition, groups are allowed to buy a pre-defined plan or essentially build their own benefits packages that include or exclude benefits in order to balance maximum value while maintaining desirable premium levels. When you hear someone complaining that their insurance company doesn’t cover this or that, it’s actually because their employer actually chose not to cover it. Preexisting conditions are always one of the things not covered, because it really would punish the current members and cause their premiums to sky-rocket. Allowing someone to buy into an insurance plan AFTER they get sick really isn’t insurance at all. It’s unfair to the people who have responsibly paid into the system all along.
Furthermore, most states have regulations preventing insurance companies from charging premiums that account for more than 70-80% (up to) of the "pool" of claims paying funds I mentioned earlier. This means they cannot use that percentage of collected premiums to do anything other than paying claims. The rest usually goes to administrative costs or cash reserves. Very few plans make any money and the ones who do only do so because they have a huge number of members and groups. The insurance industry as a whole posts about a 2.2% profit margin... that's lower than congress's last pay raise.
http://www.qando.net/?p=5439
On top of all this, government regulations require insurance companies maintain a certain amount of cash holdings to make sure medical catastrophes can be covered.
Yes, believe it or not, that was the simplified version. In summary, an insurance company is really nothing more than a collection of groups and those groups are a collection of individuals who are choosing to pool their money to offset medical risk. Almost all insurance companies have no profit motive to speak of and the ones that do are forced to keep their premiums competitive or face being rejected by the market.
Trial lawyers (who are massive supporters of democrats) on the other hand...
The president counted on the mainstream media not asking follow up questions or calling into question the truthfulness of his allegations, and they did not disappoint.
I’ll try to explain what the media has not in simplified terms. Insurance companies are not massive evil corporations whose only purpose is to bilk as much as they can from their members. In fact, most insurance companies are either non-profit or co-ops (the customers or members are the stock holders). Even the insurance companies who are for-profit must compete with the ones who are non-profit so if their premiums are not low enough to compete, they usually go out of business.
Every year, the insurance company’s actuarial staff estimates the coming year’s claims and administrative costs based on historical data, trends, new technology, new governmental regulations and other statistical variables. Good actuarial professionals have gotten very good at this and are rarely off by more than a few percentage points. This is important because it is those estimates upon which the members have their premiums set. The insurance company also negotiates the total amount hospitals and medical professionals can charge their members in order to try to keep costs down for the members. The larger the insurer, the more bargaining power they have.
In addition, groups are allowed to buy a pre-defined plan or essentially build their own benefits packages that include or exclude benefits in order to balance maximum value while maintaining desirable premium levels. When you hear someone complaining that their insurance company doesn’t cover this or that, it’s actually because their employer actually chose not to cover it. Preexisting conditions are always one of the things not covered, because it really would punish the current members and cause their premiums to sky-rocket. Allowing someone to buy into an insurance plan AFTER they get sick really isn’t insurance at all. It’s unfair to the people who have responsibly paid into the system all along.
Furthermore, most states have regulations preventing insurance companies from charging premiums that account for more than 70-80% (up to) of the "pool" of claims paying funds I mentioned earlier. This means they cannot use that percentage of collected premiums to do anything other than paying claims. The rest usually goes to administrative costs or cash reserves. Very few plans make any money and the ones who do only do so because they have a huge number of members and groups. The insurance industry as a whole posts about a 2.2% profit margin... that's lower than congress's last pay raise.
http://www.qando.net/?p=5439
On top of all this, government regulations require insurance companies maintain a certain amount of cash holdings to make sure medical catastrophes can be covered.
Yes, believe it or not, that was the simplified version. In summary, an insurance company is really nothing more than a collection of groups and those groups are a collection of individuals who are choosing to pool their money to offset medical risk. Almost all insurance companies have no profit motive to speak of and the ones that do are forced to keep their premiums competitive or face being rejected by the market.
Trial lawyers (who are massive supporters of democrats) on the other hand...
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Why the Health Care Reform Bill is Unconstitutional
Watch this liberal politician show just how ignorant she is on constitutional law.
Her answer: "where in the constitution does it say we can mandate social security and Medicare".
Actually... the Supreme Court DID rule those unconstitutional. It wasn't until the FDR administration threatened the Supreme Court (funny how... liberal presidents seem to do that a lot) and changed the legislation from "insurance" (Medicare) and "trust fund" (social security) to a "tax" that it was ruled constitutional. Congress has the constitutional power to levy taxes, you see. My follow up question to her would have been "so is it your position that the mandate is a tax?" She would have scrambled on that question too... remember the no tax for middle class or poor promise?
In actuality... the Health Reform mandate isn't the least bit comparable to SS or Medicare. Those fees are collected by the federal government. The government is trying to MANDATE that every citizen of this country enter into a contract with a third party... non-government private company to buy insurance. That has never been done and and is absolutely 100% unconstitutional. Unless "tax" now means private companies can now tax us instead of just the government.
Some people try to claim "but vehicle insurance is mandated!!!", but that is not the same thing at all.
1. You do not HAVE to buy vehicle insurance unless you want a government issued drivers license. A person could go their whole lives without having to buy car insurance.
2. Vehicle insurance mandates are passed and enforced at the state government level. The constitution says "those powers not enumerated here" are entrusted to the states.
3. The roads belong to the government so if you wish to use them with motor vehicles, you must have a drivers license. Are we going to have licenses for hospital visits now too?
4. Furthermore, the IRS (a federal agency) will not come after you if you do not have car insurance.
Her answer: "where in the constitution does it say we can mandate social security and Medicare".
Actually... the Supreme Court DID rule those unconstitutional. It wasn't until the FDR administration threatened the Supreme Court (funny how... liberal presidents seem to do that a lot) and changed the legislation from "insurance" (Medicare) and "trust fund" (social security) to a "tax" that it was ruled constitutional. Congress has the constitutional power to levy taxes, you see. My follow up question to her would have been "so is it your position that the mandate is a tax?" She would have scrambled on that question too... remember the no tax for middle class or poor promise?
In actuality... the Health Reform mandate isn't the least bit comparable to SS or Medicare. Those fees are collected by the federal government. The government is trying to MANDATE that every citizen of this country enter into a contract with a third party... non-government private company to buy insurance. That has never been done and and is absolutely 100% unconstitutional. Unless "tax" now means private companies can now tax us instead of just the government.
Some people try to claim "but vehicle insurance is mandated!!!", but that is not the same thing at all.
1. You do not HAVE to buy vehicle insurance unless you want a government issued drivers license. A person could go their whole lives without having to buy car insurance.
2. Vehicle insurance mandates are passed and enforced at the state government level. The constitution says "those powers not enumerated here" are entrusted to the states.
3. The roads belong to the government so if you wish to use them with motor vehicles, you must have a drivers license. Are we going to have licenses for hospital visits now too?
4. Furthermore, the IRS (a federal agency) will not come after you if you do not have car insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)