MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell shows how Republicans and Democrats have rewritten their views on the individual mandate in health care and how liberals, including President Obama, rewrote the concept of a mandate itself in order to pass the health care reform law.
The question is, do the Supreme Court justices know the dirty little secret about the Obamacare mandate? Weigh in below or tweet us your thoughts on the case.
Leave a Comment:
Great job on this segment. Do you realize that the most, if not all, of the segment was audio ONLY. The screen showed a continues loop of a slinky from a Century "something" commercial. It was so irritating to watch that I am sure many viewers switched channels. I just closed my eyes. How come NO ONE CAUGHT ON AND CORRECTED THE ERROR until the end of that segment? If you believe in conspiracy theories, you might wonder. I have NEVER seen anything like that before. I get your show on DircTV channel 356 at 9:00 PM here in MN.
Is it my imagination or could this segment be EXPLOSIVE? Keep up the good work.
I tried to post a comment but it didn't show up. This is just a test.
@Lawrence if the mandate nis so weak with no bite or means to enforce it why keep it in the bill. I have no income right now 0 spendable dollars. Let me hypothasize WHat happens when I accrue 10,000 dollars in fines they may not be able to recover those fines but the government sure as heck can and will prevent me from getting any other type of government aid. WHy not just take the mandate out if it is so wothless.
Even if the SCOTUS doesn't strike down the unconstitutional Republican mandate this system simply won't work for economic reasons. We're already paying over 17% of GDP (while sensible countries in Europe are paying 12% or less). The Republican mandate, if it were wildly successful and pushed another 30 million people into for-profit health insurance, would add another 2% GDP to this. This is simply going in the wrong direction.
The only way to get the costs down to what we can afford, and cover everyone, is to cut hundreds of billions of dollars. You can't do that with for-profit insurance. It is simply too expensive.
The only feasible way to get affordable, universal healthcare is to have a fully public system. Public systems have about 3-4% overhead, whereas even with the stiffest medical loss ratio you still have 15% overhead in the private system.
As a liberal, I have long said that the Republican mandates are (1) unconstitutional and (2) unaffordable.
We need to stop fussing about ACA and get on to the real solution. There are two ways to fix the problem. One is a publicly-funded system and the other socialized medicine. Clearly socialized medicine is better. If we just had the UK NHS transplanted here with minimal changes it would save us about a trillion a year and our outcomes would catapult to 8th place. And, we'd get the best end-of-life care in the world.
But since Americans can't deal with anything socialized, the next best thing, and the only plan that would give us affordable, universal coverage is a publicly-funded system, where all essential healthcare is paid by the government out of a progressive tax.
The Democratic plan (PPACA) went in the wrong direction. We need to forget about it and get on with the actual solution to the problem. When they failed to even put a public option in their bill (which could have grown into a solution with careful tending for many years) it was clear that they didn't know what they were doing and that this was going to fail. Regardless of the Court's decision without even a public option this plan was DOA from an economic perspective.
As a liberal, I hate to lose political battles, but I understand that in politics when you lose you can come back later and fix things. Losing the public option is not what made me angry about PPACA. What made me angry was that it fails the goal of affordable healthcare. It took us in the wrong direction. The very least I expect from my leaders is that they be pointed in the right direction. If they're headed the right way, I will forgive them their shortcomings. But if they are headed in the wrong direction, then they cease to be leaders.
It's time these people recognized their failures and fixed the problems. The Democratic Party needs to let go this failure and pick a plan that will actually do the job. Until they do they will be pilloried by both the left and the right, and justifiably so.
Why wasn't this argument presented in the Court?
Why doesn't Obama just tell the republicans in congress that this mandate was your idea in the first place and then offer up some changes to the legislation that makes it a real single payer program that leaves out the insurance corporations. Medicare for all American citizens only, all others are on their own. To fund it we'll have to raise taxes on all those who make more than a million dollars a year from all income sources, cut all war spending by 60%, defense budget by 25%, and end all aid to israel. We will not cut any other social programs except medicaid. This will be free for the low income individuals/citizens who make less than $50,000 per year.
If socialism is such a bad thing so is Jesus, he was the original socialist. All these republicans are just "pretend christians" and their actions actually show that they hate everything Jesus stood for or taught. They must because they can't seem to follow anything he taught. The talk a good talk, but can't walk even one step of the walk. Greed was a bad thing too if you actually follow what Jesus taught. That alone proves that American isn't and never was a christian nation. That is a big fat lie that all you ignorant hypocrites bought when you supported anyone who is a republican. It seems that corporate greed has hit the democrats too with all their noise about this health insurance corporation wealth care bill they wrote. I have sworn off of both of these corrupted political gangs.
Health insurance is a State issue, not a Federal issue. I don't want my taxes raised so that the Federal Government can subsidize "middle class" family's with the surbuban house and two cars ultra expensive health insurance program dictated by the wish list folks in Washington, DC...to the tune of a family of four with up to $80,000 in taxable income after deductions and credits obtaining tax and borrowed dollars in subsidies. That, my friends, is more "progressive" entitlement big brother government madness.
Back reeling Larry. Sounds like an Game from the '90s - leasure suit larry. Doing nothing. Influencing no one
Thanks Lawrence, for the unbiased look and telling an important part of the Health Care law. I have not listened or watched msnbc in the past but will be watching more after hearing this excellent synopsis of this complicated law that did not take sides. Thank you!!
Thank you Lawrence O'Donnell for your brilliant commentary. You hit the nail on the head. I hope our legislators were tuned in. I am grateful for Health Care Reform because when my COBRA ran out, I was able to buy private health insurance instead of being turned away for "pre-existing conditions" (a hangnail, anything)...now, the problem is, this insurance is so expensive I really can't afford it...and many can't even come near to obtaining it because of high cost...I hope that more reform comes and that as you said, we have Medicare For All. Thank you again for saying this so well.
Thanks Lawrence, for your explanation of this very complicated health care law. I appreciate the unbiased look at this important issue. I have not listened to or watched msnbc in the past but will begin watching your show because of your ability to explain and not take sides. Thanks for your commentary and please continue to do good work like this it is very helpful.
The Scotus ruling is in and Mr. O'Donnell has demonstrated why he is one of the finest minds in US news analysis today.
Well done sir.
This morning on Witt's show:
O'Donnell: "I am surprisingly ignorable..."
.
My children rushed upstairs to see what was wrong with Papa. They'd never heard him laugh so loudly and for so long.
er....Alex Wagner's not Witt. Oopsie.
Lawrence, your commentary on the health care mess is right on the money, however, I think you may have made a mistake when you said that 26 million people would still not be covered. The 26 million will fall under the Republican health care plan - hurry up and die.
The commerce clause constitutionality argument failed, and hence the ability of the federal govenmennt to force Health and Human Services "one size fits all bells and whistles" insurance policies fails. The suing Catholic dioceses for one will take that to the bank. Watch for other entities to line up, including major employers who can't get the waivers from the Health and Human Services Secretary as the little fast food franchises and unions have been able to obtain.
But the taxing power of the Federal Government is in place, and they can administer the fines and penalties as they sit fit, hmmm? Let's go Tea Partying again, as this puts the "Un"affordable Care Act back on the front burner for the "national" recall election in November big time!
It failed only with some justices, and the way it failed was different. It was a limited failure in that, in Roberts thinking, you cannot regulate a commercial activity that is not currently going on.
The counter to that point of view is that there is a great deal of commercial activity going on in an emergency room, and that Robert's argument detaches payment mechanisms (or lack of them in the case of the uninsured patient) for that commercial activity and the medical commercial activity which very much is going on.
Roberts' philosophy would say that they are disjoint, because the actors in the emergency room are free to not conduct their commercial activity if the customer cannot pay. From this point of view, the actions of the caregivers cannot obligate the patient to act in advance of the patient's need for medical services. So you have the guys in the audience of the debate yelling "Let them die." It is the meme of rugged individualism/ consequences / rough justice.
It short, it is a B grade western. A literature of politics that Reagan amped up the volume on.
The real question is whether Obama will amp up a counter literature. that resonates as well with the American people.
I have my doubts whether Obama has much awareness of this level of the playing field. He is too heavily swayed by the idealism of rationalism that was in fashion in the 18th century. Neuroscience has made some great strides in understanding that the model that the founding fathers had of how cognition works is itself delusional.
Great article. While I believe you Lawrence, my conservative friends don't. It would be nice if you would link the quotes from the health care bill that show the 'flaws' in IRS collection. Chapter and verse would be nice, or just the page numbers from the bill posted on Thomas.gov website.