This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Obamacare Outcome Matrix

Tyler Durden's picture


With the Supreme Court likely to announce its decision on the constitutionality of Health Care Reform Law this Thursday, BofA outlines five possible scenarios and their potential impact across the healthcare sectors. They base the likelihood of their scenarios on a review of the March oral arguments, previous circuit court decisions, as well as surveys of legal experts and former Supreme Court clerks. Everything you need to know about the possible outcomes and actions to take.


Supreme Court upholds the Individual Mandate: In this case, the Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act, and the next catalyst would be the upcoming elections. In addition, there remain questions as to whether the health reform law can be implemented by 2014 as many states have delayed implementation awaiting the court’s decision, and the federal government may not be able to implement exchanges in all of those states. This scenario would be positive for the hospital sector, in our view.

Supreme Court strikes the Individual Mandate, but, upholds the rest of the law: In this scenario, the Court would strike the individual mandate, but, keep in place the rest of the law, including all of the health insurance provisions. We would view this scenario negatively for the managed care sector.

Supreme Court strikes the Individual Mandate, along with related health insurance provisions (guaranteed issue, community rating, etc.): In this scenario, the Court would strike the individual mandate, along with several related health insurance provisions – particularly guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, as the Obama administration also recommended striking these down if the mandate were struck. This scenario would result in fewer covered lives (16 million vs. 32 million) according to the Congressional Budget Office, but, would maintain the Medicare payment reforms and payment reduction provisions.

Supreme Court strikes down the entire Health Care Law: In this scenario, the court would find the individual mandate unconstitutional, and not severable. This scenario would be a negative for hospitals, in our view, but generally viewed positively for managed care (other than Medicaid managed care).

Supreme Court strikes down the Medicaid expansion: In this scenario, the Court finds that the mandated expansion of Medicaid to all beneficiaries below 133% of poverty is coercive to the states, but, would leave a significant hole in coverage for low income individuals, that would need to be addressed by Congress.


Source: Bank Of America Merrill Lynch


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:35 | 2560188 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

Strike it down.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:38 | 2560198 ACP
ACP's picture

...and Chancellor Obama's next Executive Order will be out Friday morning...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:45 | 2560223 nmewn
nmewn's picture

...saying any medical student who agrees to give four years of "service to the state" will have their student loans forgiven.

Suck it up some more med students...for da faddah land ;-)

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:58 | 2560428 FrozenOut
FrozenOut's picture

...saying that any MD that desires to have a license must accept medicare patients

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:54 | 2560528 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

SCOTUS knows that FDR's court packing attempt was small fries compared to what Obama will attempt if they attack his empire. They won't go very far, if they even do anything. My two cents.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:39 | 2560639 Freddie
Freddie's picture

I tink you may be right and they do a halfway measure and kill the mandate.  They will punt.  The expedited the AZ case but this took forever to get there.   Illegals get higher priority than the citizenry.  Goldman Sachs loves the illegals and has even said so because it makes everyone a serf.  Open borders leads to serfdom.

Washington and the elites are so evils especailly the Dems.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 04:07 | 2560720 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

No must. Call it how stress free it must be to stop practicing and go fishing.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:07 | 2561906 Papasmurf
Papasmurf's picture

Blackmarket healthcare for blackmarket gold.  That is the trend.  Where to invest?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:44 | 2560510 Zionist Jew
Zionist Jew's picture

Chancellor Obama?


Our chocolate  muppet does as it's told.  It is quite amusing to watch the goy beasts focus on the D/R puppet show, while we siphon off the last remnants of wealth before the dollar goes supernova.


Nation Destroyers Bitchez!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:19 | 2560559 Oracle of Kypseli
Oracle of Kypseli's picture

Hugo Cha-bama

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 02:53 | 2560684 malikai
malikai's picture

The difference is, at least, Chavez, love him or hate him, is about 10000% more genuine than the Teleprompter-in-Theif.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:57 | 2560263 Bill D. Cat
Bill D. Cat's picture

Strike it down now .... it will only come back stronger .

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:46 | 2560403 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I don't know why so many junks. After all it's a movie line response with a great deal of accuracy. These statist will never give up the fight to control our lives. They will keep coming back for more. They just regroup and figure out another tactic.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:13 | 2560457 iinthesky
iinthesky's picture

Hang em from the lamp posts lining pennsylvania ave.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 09:59 | 2561339 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Just remember that it was the statist NAZIs who used Junkers a lot, too.  I think it's them.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:37 | 2560191 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

they could also "strike down the penalty for not paying into the plan" and leave it at that. the idea is a stupid one: the healthy and responsible pay for the unhealthy who probably won't even pay into the system until they are sick? whatever transpires it's more than enough to sink the Obama Presidency. Why not arrest people instead? Anywho hopefully we really do have a full fledged deflation in medical care upon us. My plan is "take the money into the program but only pay the care givers in booze and fried chicken."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:02 | 2560277 Bill D. Cat
Bill D. Cat's picture

These are not the premiums you are looking for ....

...obligatory sweeping arm fuck off to anyone close by . 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:01 | 2560435 FrozenOut
FrozenOut's picture


If I refuse to pay this tax will they put me in jail? And if they do, will I get healthcare at the expense of the state? So the ultimate sanction to somebody who refuses to provide for their own coverage includes providing coverage for them?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:54 | 2560651 Freddie
Freddie's picture

It is even worse that that.  It is the first Jizya in U.S. history or an Islamic tax.   You do know that muslims are exempt as well as Amish and his union buddies plus Congress.   Is is a tx on the dhimminis or infidels aka a Jizya.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 09:51 | 2561317 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

Can you provide a reference that says who will be exempt from the tax?  I don't doubt you.  I want to see it for myself.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:35 | 2561749 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture
RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION — Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

Snopes says this may or may not exempt Muslims. I guess all it would take is for a couple of Imams to officially say "no" and they'll be exempt. We know DHHS will say OK in a heartbeat if they do.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:38 | 2560196 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

scenario 6:

scotus finds obammycare unconstitutional and while they're at it declare 90% of his executive orders unconstitutional as well.

unperturbed, obammy immediately gives executive order instituting obammycare.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:42 | 2560209 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

scenario 7

using the NDAA as a cover, Obama orders a 'hit' on all the SCOTUS justices who vote it down...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:58 | 2560270 Jena
Jena's picture

...allowing him to appoint replacements.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:03 | 2560279 TrainWreck1
TrainWreck1's picture

scenario 8     

SCOTUS smacks it down, Obama has a nervous breakdown, and Jumpin Joe Biden takes over and unexpectedly turns the country and dare one say the world into a new continuum of harmony and prosperity.



Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:04 | 2560286 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Scenario 0

It doesn't matter what happens, you're gonna get fucked in the end.

Barry "BOHICA" Soetoro 2012!!!!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:15 | 2560335 Jena
Jena's picture

Conrad, you're right of course because on a long enough timeline, etc.


"BOHICA".  Good to know - saves time.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:04 | 2560288 Jena
Jena's picture

I like the delusion but I think you've had too much.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:21 | 2560353 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Scenario 9 SCOTUS declares the Kenyan unconstitutional and we have a constitutional crisis. The house impeaches Obummer With the expectations that Romney will be a shoe in. But Ron Paul shocks the world in a three way run off against the inept Biden and the Wall street puppet Romney.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:39 | 2560200 Whiner
Whiner's picture

I need more free-cheap stuff from gubmint. Healthcare must include abortions, ED remedies, boob jobs, rehab, methadone, and face lifts. And I don't want to wait in no damn lines. You hear dat, Obammy?Get me my stuff before 20014.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:05 | 2560291 TrainWreck1
TrainWreck1's picture

20014? Not sure that the country can withstand 18,000 years of Obama. Plus by then, Michelle will be the size of Saturn.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:21 | 2560354 TrainWreck1
TrainWreck1's picture

Sasquatch espies a vat of Almas Beluga...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:41 | 2560394 Tegrat
Tegrat's picture


Tue, 06/26/2012 - 09:34 | 2561270 CoolBeans
CoolBeans's picture

...and that's on a good day.

Coffee came out of my nose.  Thanks for posting that link!!


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:27 | 2560371 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Start a bank and buy it all yourself, aptronymic.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:40 | 2560205 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Sharia Law considers insurance a form of gambling which is forbidden...

So what? Are Muslims going to be exempt from being a part of this system?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 02:07 | 2560658 KowPie
KowPie's picture

So how do Muzzies following blind faith sucker law drive cars or get mortgages? Never mind, answered my own question (foot power and mud huts!)

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 05:52 | 2560772 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

If you crash the car you have to pay for it. Its not a revolutionary concept. As for Mortgages they don't do interest anyways. Besides community is supposed to look out for one another especially if someone's house burns down.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:47 | 2560233 Atomizer
Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:47 | 2560234 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Implementing Omamacare would be like putting a torch to grass hut states. Under Obamacare, the states are expected to shoulder an every increasing propotion of a monumental tab. It's a big joke and it's not happening. Instead, handcuffs and orange jumpsuits for Obama, Brenanke, and all the other traitors, before s-election time, is what's coming...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:48 | 2560236 Cabreado
Cabreado's picture

"BofA outlines..."

I'd prefer that BofA stay out of my healthcare.

Perhaps you might, too.

When will "mission creep" finally scare a critical mass...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:52 | 2560251 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'd prefer the government stay out of the payment method between me and my doctor.

But thats just me.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:57 | 2560261 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Or me and EVERYBODY, for that matter.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:58 | 2560268 knukles
knukles's picture

I dunno. 
That single payer whorehouse that takes SNAP cards in intriguing...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:07 | 2560297 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

don't go there knuck.  it's a snapclaptrap.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:14 | 2560331 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Snapper is supposed to be that good good. Let's not confuse it by having SNAPper as well.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:50 | 2560362 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

yeah that SNAPper is only good until a miniature phyllis diller head looking thing starts growing off the side of your shank.    then you'll wish you just paid up cash money for the call girl service.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:52 | 2560252 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

i'm ready to say, personally, that i want to hear what angela says about this before i make up my mind about anything

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:57 | 2560262 knukles
knukles's picture

Who gives a rats ass?
Plan all the scenarios one wants, but it's just jerk-off time a-wastin'.
The system is still broken and the Scotus decision one way or the other does not change the longer term view.
We're still fucked.
No matter who gets into which elected office, the rot will still remain.
Won't change my asset allocation one iota.

What will sure change is the rancor, pabulum, noise, talking heads; BS and who claims victory and defeat. ... the dialogue will change.
Oh it will create jobs.... new assignments for the spin meisters, talking heads, PR firms and perceptions management shops.
Nothing more.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:15 | 2560332 Whoa Dammit
Whoa Dammit's picture

Forcing people to pay for health insurance in the middle of a depression when they already are strugling to pay for food, clothing, and whatever shelter the bankers have left them, may just be the final straw.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:17 | 2560344 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Hey why do all the rows and columns say: "Insurance Company Fucks You In Your Ass For a Profit"?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:43 | 2560399 geoffb
geoffb's picture

Dammit now I have to mix another drink. LOL.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:30 | 2560489 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Spilled drink fallacy.

I don't know where I went to deserve the Fitness Singles banner ad, but the quarter-bouncable ass is appreciated.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:09 | 2560449 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Because you only read Commienese. Still, better than "Government puts gun to head of 50% of the population to extort tax on unbacked fiat in order to support the largesse of the other 50%"

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:14 | 2560622 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You prefer being screwed by one segment of society more than another. Ya can't please some freaks.

The insurance company will overcharge you to cover the payout for your 400lb smoking neighbor too; only you don't have a seat on their board with which to hoist them overboard. G'head and say you'll "go to another company"...and then try it in Alabama.

Let's just say I'd prefer not to have any guns to my head, not just a choice of trigger fingers.


Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:34 | 2560577 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Oh the Bleeding? Never mind that, we have more blood.

It will cost you to have it provided.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:18 | 2560345 kito
kito's picture

BOA should love obamacare, fits right up there with BANKSTERCARE.............tyler you do realize by giving space to these bank clown analysts-- who cant see past their nose and who are either wrong when they make a specific call, or vague when they throw out 10 different outcomes of how europe will fail--you are giving them credibility. you partly perpetuate the very system that you rage at a loss as to why you post opinions/prognositcations from them. their very mindset is made up of ego driven deranged groupthink.  they are part and parcel of a dying matrix that has plagued this country for decades........there is no need to throw them a lifeline..............and that is exactly what you are doing every time you post their garbage in a manner that seems like gospel to the uninitiated......



Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:30 | 2560364 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I've had many successful trades based on Tyler posting information from these clowns. More often than not I trade against them. Regardless it is information out there to diseminate , do with it what you will.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:43 | 2560508 kito
kito's picture

disseminating and acknowledging their garbage without criticism gives credit to their garbage...........of course we all enjoy when tyler highlights their shortcomings, but there is no need to frame them as a legitimate voice in articles such as these............

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:24 | 2560361 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Got this email from Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty in April about how the fed govt is bribing states to sneak it thru:

Have you ever noticed that when the media is focused on something big going on in government, something else skulks under the radar?

By the time you learn about the other issue, it’s usually too late to stop it.

All eyes are on the Supreme Court right now, as the 50 states await a decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

But something sinister is lurking behind the scenes. ObamaCare is being planned and developed in the states RIGHT NOW!

Health Insurance Exchanges are not a new concept in America. They were created in Utah and Massachusetts long before ObamaCare, and they have been costly and ineffective failures.

In order to institute the infamous “individual mandate,” ObamaCare bribes each state to set up what is known as a Health Insurance Exchange. Without a state-created exchange, the individual mandate cannot be enforced.

And once our state creates an exchange, it will remain in place - even if the mandate is overturned.

Regardless of what happens in court, our state should be fighting the implementation of ObamaCare at every turn.

We must oppose ObamaCare State Exchanges every step of the way, regardless of any court decision, because:

ObamaCare State Exchanges mean mandated, government-run health care.
Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to develop ObamaCare Exchanges. Your taxpayer dollars are being wasted, and you are footing the bill while they steal your freedoms.
There are strings attached to the bribe money. Accepting the money requires the state to submissively surrender sovereignty on all health care issues.
After the State Exchange is up and running, federal money will dry up - and states will have to pick up the tab. Your state taxes will have to be increased in order to pay for it!

Make no mistake, the federal government will control every aspect of your health care.

Yet, Governor Corbett claims that establishing a CorbettCare Exchange will protect Pennsylvania citizens from undue federal regulation. The opposite is actually true. Creation of the CorbettCare Exchange does great harm and forces onerous federal regulations on our state.

Governor Corbett is readily ceding state sovereignty to the central government, and relinquishing all authority on health care matters.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:27 | 2560373 WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

All I have to say is this: pull up this article and do a ctrl + F for "Lynch Obama." Unfortunate tagging or Freudian slip, Tyler(s)?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:35 | 2560578 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

I blame the alphabet!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:28 | 2560377 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Can we start calling this thing what ity really is?


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:28 | 2560378 caimen garou
caimen garou's picture

where can I get the US handbook of laws ,rules ,and regulations! I have a hard time keeping up with this crap!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:18 | 2560558 i_fly_me
i_fly_me's picture

It used to be called "The Constitution."  Quaint, huh?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:37 | 2560581 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

For everyone other than Commies and slaves, it still is. Hang the traitors.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:40 | 2560388 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

We already know it's unconstitutional so I fail to see the dilemma.



Edited to add:

Fuck you Obama.



Fuck you too Romney.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:50 | 2560408 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The dilemma is that there are people on the supreme court who think the constitution is no longer applies in a" modern complex society" such as ours.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:00 | 2560423 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Questions would remain as to how to provide coverage for low income individuals below 133% of poverty.  Congress would need to address this issue.


Apparently we just assume now that "coverage" = actual medical attention and that the government (specifically the morons in congress who forced this abortion on us while exempting themselves) is the 'Easy' button for life's problems.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:08 | 2560446 honestann
honestann's picture

If the law is upheld in any significant way, expect millions of people to LEAVE the USSA, following those of us who already left in the past few years because we are not willing to be slaves... period... end of story.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 02:06 | 2560657 delacroix
delacroix's picture

ann, where did you go?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 18:41 | 2563157 honestann
honestann's picture

Well, I prefer to keep my privacy intact, but to not totally avoid your question, my short list was chile, fiji, nz... in, ehhhh... alphabetic order.  I also considered nepal, iceland, mongolia and a few other oddball places.  Gotta give high marks to iceland for throwing the banksters and politicians out the window!  If it wasn't so damn cold!  Hmmm... maybe living next to some molten magma might work.

Personally I'm partial to water (ocean/lake), mountains (at least not flat), low population density, solitude/boonies, dry (low humidity), warm, and either has a relatively benevolent or restrained or limited government, or has a government that is poor and clueless (and therefore fairly restrained to screwing around only in populated areas).  For example, fiji is good because their "government" is like the keystone cops, hardly ever has anyone visit the tiny outlying islands much less islands that are home to one individual or tiny group (my kind of places).

Nowhere is perfect.  Only the least humid places in fiji (with mostly constant breeze) have tolerable levels of humidity for me.  I would never live near a city (which means "more than ~10,000 population" to me), so some countries that might not look great on the surface aren't so bad when you live in the extreme boonies of the andes, or on an island of your own (where 50km from the nearest large island by catamaran or light aircraft feels much more isolated than a quick 50km drive on a highway).

The 20 years before I escaped, I lived in Wailea, Maui, Hawaii.  That too was a tradeoff... one of the driest parts of Hawaii, but just barely within my humidity tolerance.  But it was pretty good as far as warm weather, warm ocean, gorgeous [albeit few] mountains (Haleakala), and for the first 10 years fairly "out of sight, out of mind" when it came to government and "regular folks".  Unfortunately, the housing bubble destroyed Maui, like so many other places (the prices went sky-high, but didn't fall back much in the crash --- a "no win scenario").

PS:  Just in case someone with a bit of savings and a shred of "can do" still exists, and happens to read this, I'll mention a project I can only do given one or two partners.  I found a spectacular ~60 acre island that I can purchase (yes, the whole island), surrounded by year-round warm water and living coral reefs, roughly 1.4km long by 0.4km wide, with a ridge that runs down the length and gets up to 80 meters altitude, and about 2km of pristine bright-white sand beach in 4 separate private sections.  I'd like to buy and develop it as follows: one side for "us" (the partners), then subdivide part of the other side for others to purchase 16 lots of roughly 1 acre each --- all literally on the beach.  The idea is to recoup everything we paid for the island and the "self-sufficiency" improvements we install to make the lots practical and attractive (solar-panels, wind-turbine, water-capture and filtration/purification, underground pipe to carry all this to the lots --- and our side too).  Then we can decide whether to establish 2 or 3 ultra-exclusive "executive vacation" properties on our side, each with its own private beach and/or our own digs, or whatever we choose.  I can't pull this off myself, but 1 or 2 more partners with $250K or more savings to invest, and we're off to the races --- and own our own island with zero property taxes!  No, I'm not saying where in public!  I've spend 100s if not 1000s of hours finding totally awesome properties, and this is one of my top 3 finds.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:09 | 2560450 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

the scotus is overstepping its authority by reviewing this law.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 04:06 | 2560718 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture


It is CONGRESS and Executive that overstepped law. Thus Checks and Balances fall to SCOTUS to restore the proper balance for the PEOPLE as intended by the Founding Fathers.

My one fear is someday there will be 9 wussies on that Court who will go along with any namby pamby bullshit crap and override the people.

IT WAS THE STATES that sued on behalf of the People.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:17 | 2560465 Rich Bagg
Rich Bagg's picture

Both parties want this stricken so it shall be.  Republicans for obvious reasons but Democrats too because they thought Single Payor was the solution.  Obama tried to make everyone happy and it backfired.



Tue, 06/26/2012 - 07:03 | 2560807 mvsjcl
mvsjcl's picture

Get real. Like Obama sat in the Oval Office, rolled up his sleeves, licked the pencil tip, and penned this massive bill all by himself, motivated solely by altruism and a desire to "make everyone happy." If only.


This abortion of legislation was conceived by corporatist interests and hand delivered to his minions by the puppetmasters' lobbyists frontmen, who said "Here's our latest demands. Now get this passed, or else."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:45 | 2560515 barroter
barroter's picture

Stick to your for profit providers, which constantly goes up. Enjoy the denials and run arounds from insurance. Believe in the free market which NEVER once has lowered the costs of health care.  Rejoice in the fact your yearly insurance premium probably has out pace your yearly mortgage payment.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:48 | 2560518 world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

Uncle Sam can make it happen for you

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:50 | 2560520 Duke of Con Dao
Duke of Con Dao's picture

everyone seems to be harshing on Obama...

hey, I love a pile-on! here is a vid mash I did some years back

when Caldera was still in the Cabinet... and Rahm...

got some funny bits I think, esp the Air Force One scene...

and let's not forget the lovely Cat Power


Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:06 | 2560542 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

It better be dead. If not, we are moving along similiar paths of 1760-1774 when Parliment refused to listen to the People.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:14 | 2560552 OneTinSoldier66
OneTinSoldier66's picture

Here's a scenario.


If they uphold it, and try to come for what little bit of money I manage to eek out in this hell hole of oppression...


They'll never take me alive!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:25 | 2560562 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

The individual mandate was orignally a Republican idea - before a Democrat put it into law, then the Republicans decided it was unconstitutional.  Even Fox News figured this one out:


Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate

Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle"


Other facts about healthcare that you won't hear on Fox News anymore:

If we dropped out healthcare spending to the level of France, 11.8% GDP, we'd save $850 billion/year.  France's system is govt-run, still has housecalls(!), and has the best overall health outcomes in the world.

Medicare administrative costs, per dollar of care delivered, are 40% those of the private insurers. 

In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:32 | 2560573 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

""In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance."""

That's a real stretch to claim that's the ""origin"" of the idea of a Government Mandate. In fact, to make that claim I think you fell over a cliff.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:35 | 2560629 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Are you claiming that the mandate wasn't the mainline GOP counter-proposal to HillaryCare? If so, you need to check your facts.

Heritage (GOP "thinktank") proposed it in 1989.  Here's the link below.  Even FoxNews got this one right - are you more clueless than FoxNews?  Is that even possible?

 The Consumer Choice and Health Security Act, sponsored by Sen Don Rickles (R-OK) and 24 GOP Senate co-sponsors in response to Hillary's healthplan, contained the individual mandate as a central feature. 


Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:34 | 2560792 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture


Ha ha, democrat vs republican.  Why don't you frenemies get a room?  Then you can talk about stealing all night long.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:37 | 2560580 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

It matters not.

I would like to see a stand made on the "Checks and Balances" from the SCOUS for all our sakes.

The damn law is unconstitutional and they know it.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:51 | 2560586 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

When Obama circumvented the Senate and rammed this bill through in 2010 there were 23 million Americans that were in need of healthcare. Two years later that number has grown to 32 million, an increase of nearly 30%? If it was going to cost taxpayers 1 Trillion two years ago, how much is it going to cost us now? The cost of healthcare has already risen nearly 20% since the bill was passed in March 2010. Add another 9 million people to the dole and my guess is heathcare costs will continue to bankrupt Americans.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:20 | 2560627 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

"When Obama circumvented the Senate and rammed this bill through..."

God, you're a numbnuts.  Republican presidents have used the budget reconciliation process to 'ram' bills past the Senate fillibuster more often than Democratic presidents have.

Bush used it three times to pass his deficit-exploding tax cuts.  Here's one your GOP idiot "think tanks", the Heritage Foundation, claiming Bush's 2001 tax cut would grow the economy enough that the federal debt would be retired by 2010.  How'd that work out for you?

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

By and
April 27, 2001


President George W. Bush and Congress are currently engaged in a major debate on the issues of reducing the record-high tax burden and addressing a number of problems in the tax code. The President has proposed to lower marginal income tax rates, reduce the marriage penalty, increase the child tax credit, and phase out the estate tax. The House has passed three tax relief bills: H.R. 3 to reduce marginal income tax rates, H.R. 6 to reduce the marriage penalty and increase the child tax credit, and H.R. 8 to phase out the estate tax.1 The Senate has not yet acted on any tax relief bill.

One element of the debate over President Bush's tax plan concerns how it will affect household and government budgets as well as the U.S. economy.2 To assess the plan's economic and budgetary effects and to help frame this debate, analysts in The Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis (CDA) conducted a dynamic simulation of the proposals in the President's tax relief plan. The final results show that the Bush plan would significantly increase economic growth and family income while substantially reducing federal debt.3 For example:

  • Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.4
  • The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.
Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:00 | 2560604 CABill
CABill's picture

Step 1: 

Greece fixes high unemployment by hiring government employees and expanding bureaucracies.

Greece pays for idle government employees by raising taxes.

Taxed businesess hire fewer employees, and start shutting down.  

Unemployment rises.  

Greece creates more government programs and borrows from central bank.  

Greece causes the country to go bankrupt.

Step 2: Replace the word Greece with Obama

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:11 | 2560618 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Ditch the trite lies; time for facts

Clinton: lowest number of federal employees since Eisenhower

GW Bush: biggest increase in the number of federal employees in history

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:14 | 2560782 Catullus
Catullus's picture

That's because Clinton "privatized" the federal workforce by outsourcing most of the jobs to contractors.  Fact.

Now there are government contractors who get contracts only so they can subcontract out the work to someone else for cheaper.  Fact.

The counties surrounding Washington DC have the highest median income in the country.  There is no major manufacturing, service, or technology industry in Washington DC.  Facts.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:31 | 2560789 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture


Taking a man's wages by force is stealing, fact.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 09:31 | 2561247 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

"That's because Clinton "privatized" the federal workforce by outsourcing most of the jobs to contractors.  Fact."

In what alternate universe did that happen? Got a bridge for sale, too? 

Maybe you're confusing Clinton with Dubya, where so many of the personnel in Iraq were 150K/yr private contractors.  Fact.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:05 | 2560610 Bolweevil
Bolweevil's picture

"Keep your laws out if my uterus!" or something like that

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 02:58 | 2560687 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Other side.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:09 | 2560779 Catullus
Catullus's picture

So if this is upheld, Hospitals benefit from the "32 million" (it's more like 8) who now become insured and greater utilitization.  If the mandate is taken away, hospitals don't benefit because the forced price controls (I'm sorry, we're calling those "cost controls" now) would still be enforced and not as many people would be insured.

So, good = more people at forced lower prices vs bad = fewer people at lower prices. 

All of the other things matrixed here are higher order on the medical care supply chain.  Ultimately the hospital is on the retail end of health care services.  And they're not that profitable.  If you haven't noticed the waves of hospital consolidations across the country, it's not because they're swimming in cash and excess capacity.  Never mind that most of the states are bankrupt and put the Medicaid bills in arrears by mid-fiscal year for the past 4, increasing Medicaid access should fix that (haha).

But don't get your hopes up ever for the Supreme Court to strike anything the Federal Government does down.  They work for the Federal Government, there have very few occassions in history when a group of lawyers appointed for life has told their employer that they're not allowed to do something.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:14 | 2560781 johnjkiii
johnjkiii's picture

I'm sitting here in England where the doctors went on strike for higher pensions and so numerous bureaucratically delayed operations had to be put off - yet again. (Not hip to need a hip) Where the bus drivers stage 1 day strikes because the guv'mint won't give them a £500 bonus for working normal shifts during the olympics and I realize I am getting used to what Obammy will do for America. It helps me understand the give-a-shit attitude of the Brits toward work & success. Obammy will give us all the goodies we all deserve and nobody will hear the giant toilet flush before we all go down the shitter.


Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:29 | 2560787 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture


Yeah, so, isn't it getting near lunch time?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:48 | 2560799 Heroic Couplet
Heroic Couplet's picture

Mitt RoMONEY and Bain and Co: How many American jobs is he responsible for sending offshore? How many people lost jobs and health care?

Then we can say all Republicans, especially Mitt RoMONEY, should be out looking for jobs. Take Faux News cameras, take Rush and Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and the Koch Brothers, and show us where the Bush tax cuts have created jobs. If they can't, they need to be called liars, to their face, voted out of office and kept out of office.

Then we can talk about health care. We live in a global deflationary environment. There is no reason for health care costs to be rising. Then let's talk about unions. The American Medical Assocication is one of the largest unions in the United States.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 09:40 | 2561287 CoolBeans
CoolBeans's picture

If this is not struck down -



Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:03 | 2561352 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

The end result of all this will be less covered people, and more money in the healthcare industries coffers. Great job again US!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 14:50 | 2562406 rambo1028
rambo1028's picture

I was wondering if anyone realized that the amount of people who will be eligible at 133% of poverty level is not much different than it is now. Not many more will be eligible so to me it just looks like a big waste of money being funneled to insurance companies. And the working poor/ middle class will still be left out in the cold and footing the bill.

Just one more way that working doesn't pay...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!