http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-usa-healthcare-cbo-idUSTRE71H77N20110218 Repealing healthcare law would cost $210 bln: CBO By Susan Heavey WASHINGTON | Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:48pm EST (Reuters) - Repealing the U.S. healthcare law enacted last year would add $210 billion to the nation's deficit over the next decade, congressional auditors said on Friday. The Congressional Budget Office said enactment of a House of Representatives measure last month to scrap the healthcare overhaul would eliminate a number of provisions aimed at reducing federal healthcare costs as well as strip out new revenue-creating taxes and fees. Republicans, who now control the House, campaigned on repealing the law, one of Democratic President Barack Obama's main legislative victories. Despite the vote in the House, the repeal was largely symbolic as neither the Democratic-led Senate nor Obama support it. The CBO, along with the Joint Committee on Taxation, earlier estimated the law would save the federal government $124 billion between 2010, when the law was passed, and 2019. Its $210 billion cost increase estimate on Friday covers a slightly different period -- 2012 to 2021. The agency, which analyzes the costs of various legislation for U.S. lawmakers, said the main difference in the two estimates was mainly because they cover different 10-year periods. But looking at just the eight years in common between both estimates, implementing the law would save the government $132 billion, while repealing it would boost deficits by $119 billion, it said. The CBO's analysis comes as U.S. House lawmakers passed an amendment to a spending bill on Friday that would block funds needed to implement the 2010 law, one of Obama's top domestic priorities. Passed last March, the measure aims to help roughly 30 million Americans gain access to health insurance while enacting numerous other consumer protections. While expanding coverage was estimated to increase the deficit, such costs were offset by provisions that curb federal spending on items such as private Medicare plans, the CBO said. Additional fees and taxes such as those imposed on health insurers and drugmakers also helped offset the law's costs, it said.
Judge Upholds Obamacare: Congress May Regulate "Mental Activity" Feb 23, 2011 David J. Shestokas On March 31, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act. Since then federal courts have been struggling with constitutional chalenges. On February 22, 2011 District of Columbia District Court Judge Gladys Kessler dismissed a case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, in the case of Mead v. Holder. On January 31, 2011, Northern District of Florida Judge Roger Vinson issued his opinion in Florida v. HHS that the entire scheme of Obamacare was unconstitutional. Differences in the Cases and the Results The matter before Judge Kessler involved strictly private citizen plaintiffs claiming the “individual mandate” was beyond the power of Congress. The case before Judge Vinson involved 26 states of the Union, several private plaintiffs and the National Federation of Independent Business. In each case, the decision of the judge is binding upon the parties involved, unless and until the decision is appealed and overturned. Judge Vinson’s decision, because of the parties, more than half the states of the Union, has the more far reaching effect. The Commerce Clause Analysis of Judge Kessler The extent and limits of congressional powers under the Commerce Clause are central to Judge Kessler’s analysis as it was claimed before her that the law was beyond the power granted to Congress by the clause. As the history of the clause is inescapable, Judge Kessler’s review of Commerce Clause history mirrors that of Judge Vinson. Judge Kessler admits that all previous Commerce Clause cases have involved “activity”: “As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power.” The question that then becomes central to Judge Kessler’s analysis is whether the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the “decision making” or “mental activity” of individual citizens. Judge Kessler concludes that such “decision making” or “mental activity” is economic activity within Congress’ power to regulate. Judge Kessler relies heavily upon Congress’ various findings though noting the Supreme Court has directed judges not to pile “inference upon inference” in determining the effect of an action on interstate commerce. The balance of her reasoning determines that an individual deciding not to do something is in reality an activity that may be regulated. This is the greatest divergence between her and Judge Vinson when it comes to analyzing the “individual mandate”. Is Deciding to Not Buy Health Insurance an Activity that Congress May Regulate? Both Judge Vinson and Judge Kessler acknowledge that all congressional exercises of Commerce Clause power decided by the Supreme Court have regulated “activity”. Judge Kessler has concluded that the mental activity of deciding not to buy health insurance is in fact an “activity” for regulation purposes of the Commerce Clause. Judge Vinson took a significantly different view: “At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”; and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond the Commerce Clause and is unconstitutional. … based solely on a plain reading of the Act itself (and a common sense interpretation of the word “activity” and its absence), I must agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the individual mandate regulates inactivity.” The judges apparently agree that the Commerce Clause has previously been used to regulate “activity” and that such “activity” must substantially affect interstate commerce to constitutionally allow Congress to regulate it. In essence, the authority of Congress to impose the “individual mandate” revolves around deciding if the mental process (as described by Judge Kessler) of deciding not to buy health insurance is an “activity”. Judge Vinson's decision, while declaring the law unconstitutional, was apparently not understood by the US Department of Justice, which asked him for a further ruling through a "Motion to Clarify". The Need for Supreme Court Review In the Florida case, the Department of Justice has asked Judge Vinson to clarify what was meant by “unconstitutional”. In another case in Virginia the state has asked the government to cooperate in expediting the matter to a Supreme Court decision and the federal government has refused. It is quite clear, with conflicting decisions by the district courts, that ultimately the definition of “activity” vs. “inactivity” must come from the United States Supreme Court. At the moment there are five district court opinions with different outcomes and differing reasoning. It is important to note, that unless the judge involved has issued a “stay” of his/her order, for the states and people involved in those suits, those judicial decisions are the law for those parties. The Department of Justice has yet to indicate in any court filing why it is not proper to expedite a Supreme Court decision to resolve the matter as quickly as possible for the parties to the suits around the country and for the citizens of the United States.
I'm tired of all the judicial activism posters like rtsy are in favor of. I prefer a more strict reading of the constitution more in line with what the founding fathers and authors of the U.S. constitution believe. We know the founding fathers were not only fine with requiring private citizens to purchase certain goods from a federal level, they actually required it to be done and signed it into law.
Your Liberal media at work: All these decisions are at the federal district level, yet two get more words and prominence.
More AMA / Obamacare lovefest. In other words, if you want to see your genetic data, not only do you have to pay for the test, you have to pay a doctor. Regulatin' and crony capitalism... Obamacare style. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ur-genome-without-our-supervision/#more-52380 American Medical Association: You Can’t Look At Your Genome Without Our Supervision The AMA struggles valiantly to keep medical paternalism alive. The American Medical Association has written a letter to the US Food and Drug Administration as part of the lead-up to the FDA’s meeting on direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing next month. The tone is predictable: the medical establishment is outraged by the idea of people having access to their own genetic information without the supervision of its members, and they want the FDA to stop it: We urge the Panel to offer clear findings and recommendations that genetic testing, except under the most limited circumstances, should be carried out under the personal supervision of a qualified health care professional, and provide individuals interested in obtaining genetic testing access to qualified health care professionals for further information. In other words, the AMA is seeking to maintain its members’ traditional monopoly over the interpretation of genetic information – and they expect regulators to act as their enforcers, beating down the upstart DTC genomics companies who have wandered onto their sacred turf. This is, of course, an absurd, desperate demand. If doctors think that people should consult them about their genomes, they shouldn’t run crying to the regulators to provide the necessary force; instead, they need to convince the public that a medical consultation adds genuine value to their genomic information. Unfortunately for the AMA, right now it’s far from clear that this is true: in many cases, DTC genomics customers are far better equipped to interpret their results than their doctors are. The AMA implicitly acknowledges this in the final paragraph of the letter, and thus effectively undermines its entire argument: The number of genetic tests available directly to consumers has proliferated rapidly, and several studies have reported that physicians find it difficult to keep up with the pace of genetic technology. Brilliant. So, to paraphrase: We don’t actually know how to interpret genetic information, but we should be the only people allowed to do it. So when the AMA pleads to the FDA to please, just think of the patients: Without the guidance of a physician, genetic counselor, or other genetics specialist, test results could be misinterpreted, risks miscalculated, and incorrect health and lifestyle changes pursued. …the appropriate response is: dude, the test results are going to be misinterpreted, risks miscalculated, and incorrect health and lifestyle changes suggested if they come and ask their friendly local physician, given that he thinks “SNP” is a slang term for vasectomy. Show me a primary physician who can explain a multi-variant risk prediction for Crohn’s disease as well as, say, 23andMe does, and then we’ll talk. So what is the appropriate way to protect consumers? As Dan Vorhaus and I argued last year, the answer is not to take genetic testing out of the public’s hands, but simply to ensure that consumers are provided with the objective data required to make an informed decision about whether to take a test and how to interpret its results. Should DTC genetic testing customers be encouraged to consult a clinician before making major lifestyle changes based on a test result? Sure. But they shouldn’t be obliged to. And this is a fight that’s far bigger than genomics: as Western populations age, we simply will not be able to sustain viable health systems without encouraging individuals to take greater responsibility for managing their own healthcare. That means the “doctor as universal gatekeeper of health information” model has to die, no matter how desperately the AMA and its proxies try to keep this obsolete, paternalistic vision alive. Daniel MacArthur is a UK-based geneticist who writes about the emerging industry of consumer genomics. He also blogs about personal genomics at Genomes Unzipped.
Weird, given that the article mentions nothing about the Obama Admin's response to said letter. As noted in the article, there is no such regulation in place now. And nowhere does it mentioned that a regulation is in the works. Seems like more fearmongering and Obama-hating, rtsy style.
wired.com didn't make the obamacare connection. ...are you suggesting the AMA wouldn't be protecting their turf (or protecting patients -- depending on your take) if it were someone else in the whitehouse?
Nope, but now they have someone in the white house who will bend over for them. The AMA should be busted next.
