Will The Insurance Industry Defend The Individual Mandate?

Jack Balkin:

[I]f total repeal is not on the table, the insurance industry's interest is in keeping the individual mandate and thus opposing any attempt to hold it unconstitutional.

It will therefore be interesting to see whether, as the litigation develops, members of the insurance industry begin to file amici supporting the constitutionality of the individual mandate. [. . .] The Tea Party may despise the individual mandate, but the health insurance industry does not. [. . .]

Actually, this one is easy. No brief from the insurance industry is needed. Just the right signals. The Supreme Court will know what to do. No appellate circuit will strike down the individual mandate. Cert. denied. GOP can tell the Tea Party, we need a more conservative "originalist" Court!! Wins all around for the GOP.

Speaking for me only

< iBama: Was Obama Like Apple? | The Wonk Deficit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And expect much tedious ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    and inaccurate discussions about the 10th Amendment from Tea Partiers during the Republican primaries.

    "States rights" (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 05:25:21 PM EST
    Serving nutso causes since 1800!

    To: BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 07:30:51 PM EST
    My take exactly. I appreciate very much reading your remarks here...if only because I thought myself to be "out there" when mentioning these same thoughts to my husband recently. An interesting dilemma all the way around for Republicans (including JJ Roberts and Kennedy, perhaps), as it may be close to universally impermissible to void the parts of the law relating to pre-existing conditions, overall cap, offspring on parents policy until age 25, and the gradual filling-in of the "donut hole." Of course--as you so astutely suggest--the mandate lurks nearby. The choice: Destroy the "good parts" that everyone likes individually or are beginning to appreciate OR hit the hit the buddies in the industry by destroying the "mandate." Hmmmm. Unless the Repubs want to kick their lobbyist friends or unless they want more government involvement.... (Who knows why this is the situations? Planned or accidental? I remember listening to former President Clinton, and I would place my bet on the former "planned." But then, that is just centrist me.)

    Hidden tax (none / 0) (#4)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    The individual mandate is just a hidden tax on healthy people to subsidize the health care plan.  It would have been much better simply to raise income taxes as a whole to subsidize health care.

    Not just on healthy people (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:45:17 AM EST
    It's a tax on people who CAN'T afford health insurance premiums too.

    Your implication that "only healthy people" wouldn't have insurance is just not true.  


    Not really (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:59:55 AM EST
    Supposedly, if you can't afford insurance, you don't have to pay the penalty. So the penalty is really a paper tiger.

    Kaiser will be the last one standing (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 10:03:19 PM EST
    Obama will somehow "regulate" health insurance rates by 2014 to be so low that no company can afford sell the policies except for Kaiser Permanente.  We will then have one "private" plan which will be regulated like the old-fashioned phone companies/electric companies etc.  This was probably the plan all along.  You heard it here first.

    oh jeez (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    FYI we have pretty much had this plan in place in MA for years now, and we still have plenty of options, despite the fact that our governer has pushed back pretty hard on insurance rates.  And this is all in a state government that is waaaaay more liberal than the fed.

    But you know, looking at facts/history is such a pain.

    Ironically, I think your "scenario" is the best case scenario to many people here.  But it's not gonna happen.


    "pushed way back" (none / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    That is rates as of 2011.  How much more will the governor push back on insurance rates in Massachusetts by 2014, and will other companies choose to stay in business then?  

    I deduced it long ago from (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:11:17 AM EST
    Health and Insurance Ministry's public information officer, Ezra "no-joke!" Klein.