Oral Arguments

[AirFlacco]

GOP lawmakers are saying OBY is threatening/putting a bounty on the court with unprecedented remarks and he even resorts to name calling - "un-elected" just like Galen does in here. LOL - there's a reason they're un-elected, which is to do what OBY the King
is complaining about. It limits the King's executive power and it's working in this case and this goes back to 18th Century liberal thinking. Then Jefferson the leader of OBYs own party put it in our new system as part of the checks and balances between the three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.

That's why the ONE is so upset. He must be worried sick about losing it. Slick Willie called OBY a Chicago thug in 2008. Now his pal and former Chief of Staff is running Chicago.

We already said our health care system isn't perfect but it's the best in the world. Ask Greece. If anyone doesn't like it they can move to Canada and join the 50,000 pussies that deserted there during the Vietnam War and see how bad their health system is.

See my links above detailing how their citizens are coming down here for health care. It's
so broke the gov't can't afford to build new hospitals and they shut completely down at
least two weeks of the year.

That's what a Canadian told me on a cruise ship 10 years ago. She always goes to
the hospital in Detroit and the Canadian gov't pays them. She also waits months for a
simple x-ray. The same will happen here if OBY CARE is upheld. They will schedule you
according to age and severity of illness. My x-ray office has already confirmed this.


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/0...supreme-court/

[HoustonRaven]

Double posting because this is not really related:

Congress specifically found health care affected interstate commerce. And, broadly speaking, I don't think you can credibly argue that it's wrong.

Sure. I'll buy that. But even the most liberal (big and small "L") interpretations of the bill still show the mandate to be incredibly outside the norm of anything that has been passed. If government can insert themselves in our lives by simply saying "because we are all involved in it one way or another" then you open the flood gates for federal control of .... well .... everything. That's the problem I have with it.

What critics would have the Supreme Court do here is look under the hood of the law at one of the bits inside and evaluate whether that one bit is, in fact, part of interstate commerce, after Congress has already found that the whole issue is part of interstate commerce. Right or wrong, that is not judicial "restraint." That's judicial meddling. Root for it all you want, and I would agree with you sometimes it's appropriate for a court to go under the hood of a law, but it's not resraint.

You're right. It's not restraint. But lack of restraint doesn't make a court activist either. You simply cannot tell someone they must buy something simply because they may be involved in a social compact of some sort. This debate goes above the healthcare fray and instead becomes an individual liberty issue.

[festivus]

I am aware costs are rising, thanks for assuming I didn't. I am also aware of how most insurance is obtained through the employer.

My questioning was to get your perspective not because I don't know how it works.

Are you patronizing me? I don't understand. I was answering your question.

I am not saying there isn’t a problem with cost, things need to be done to lower cost and to stop people from walking into the ER and passing the cost on to others. Two things that could have been done would have been to allow insurance companies to sell across states lines to create more competition and tort reform

"Tort reform"???

That is a BS talking point if I ever heard one. One day over a beer we can discuss how much bullshit there is packed into those words, but not without the beer.

so doctors don’t have to charge an arm and a leg to protect from frivolous lawsuits (not every lawsuit is frivolous).

No. Doctors have to charge an arm and a leg for a host of reasons, but defending from lawsuits is not one of them. Doctors have to pay insurance companies to protect them from lawsuits, and I do not accept as a premise that the premiums charged by the insurance companies are fair or reasonable or connected to the actual cost of the insurer doing business. Doctors also have to charge an arm and a leg because of the administrative costs associated with billing health insurers, which are burdensome indeed, as some of our readers and perhaps yourself already know.

Both of those don’t force anybody to buy anything. We could also enforce illegal immigration laws and stop paying for illegals to get free ER visits. AS for the other people who get free ER care I haven't thought about a solution for that.

Whatever. There's a lot of misinformation out there about what's in the actual ACA; the brand-neutral website factcheck.org posted this awhile back to help clear things up.

Regardless, as I said upthread I would not say the ACA is perfect. It is much better than doing nothing, and if it fails, we will have nothing but skyrocketing costs for a long, long time.

But making everybody buy health insurance won't fix the issue of having cost passed on to everyone else. Plenty of people that have insurance, visit the doctor, get a bill for what the insurance doesn't cover and don't pay that bill. How do you solve that, mandate everyone pays their bill or pay a fine?

Many service providers have to deal with providing services to people who don't pay. Why should they be different from lawyers, plumbers, or house painters? Do they need special protection from deadbeats? I don't see this as a real issue, just something petty to whine about for someone who has already made up his mind.

Question, are you for this because you believe it’s the best thing or just because something is better than nothing? Cause I gotta tell you if you’ve read up on this bill you’d probably see it would do away with the private insurance market.

Yeah, you read your sources, I'll read mine.

But the courts job is to determine if what congress does is constitutional or not. So that's not practicing activism.

If you say so.

The court is not going under the hood of this law at all, or at least it doesn't seem that way by their questioning. If they good under the hood and say what parts stand or fall (if they strike down the mandate) that would be going under the hood.

Heh. The court spent an entire day hearing arguments on what would happen if they hypothetically struck down part of the law but not all of it, and you're telling me that's not going under the hood?

Sure. I'll buy that. But even the most liberal (big and small "L") interpretations of the bill still show the mandate to be incredibly outside the norm of anything that has been passed. If government can insert themselves in our lives by simply saying "because we are all involved in it one way or another" then you open the flood gates for federal control of .... well .... everything. That's the problem I have with it.

Sure, that's fair enough. The pure-of-heart libertarian will say "I reject seatbelt laws, I reject rules about where I can smoke my cigarette, I reject rules about prostitution and narcotics and abortion, I reject rules requiring the ingredients be posted on my bag of potato chips. It's *my* body and I can do what I want." That guy will definitely *not* want the ACA telling him he needs insurance.

That guy was played by Burt Reynolds in Deliverance, who (if I remember correctly?) said he didn't believe in insurance. And I get it, and I sympathize, and it's an interesting theoretical position. In the real world, though, Burt Reynolds' character had his arm broken, and poor Ned Beatty, on top of his other indignities in the movie, had to pay for the emergency medical care.

I'm not going to tell you you can't/shouldn't believe what you believe, but in the real world *somebody* is paying for medical care, and that somebody is the taxpayer, when it's some numskull who thought he'd never get hurt.

You're right. It's not restraint. But lack of restraint doesn't make a court activist either. You simply cannot tell someone they must buy something simply because they may be involved in a social compact of some sort. This debate goes above the healthcare fray and instead becomes an individual liberty issue.

Yeah, like I said, I understand. I *do* wish you modern libertarians would see that you can say the same thing about religious issues & abortion, but those are separate inflammatory debates.

[AirFlacco]

LOL - The court spent the entire day shooting the thing down while the liberal judges

bailed their guy out, all w/o reading any of the 2,700 pages. The arguments concentrated
on the mandate and commerce clause plus 1 or 2 other points.

Now, had they read and commented on each section of thee law, then they would have
been getting under the hood. Some people.

[NCRAVEN]

Are you patronizing me? I don't understand. I was answering your question.

No, I was not patronizing you. You said “I didn't know people weren't aware of this “ since it was a reply to me I thought it was a “shot”.

"Tort reform"???

No. Doctors have to charge an arm and a leg for a host of reasons, but defending from lawsuits is not one of them. Doctors have to pay insurance companies to protect them from lawsuits, and I do not accept as a premise that the premiums charged by the insurance companies are fair or reasonable or connected to the actual cost of the insurer doing business.

It’s not the only reason, it’s one of. Doctors pay insurance companies to protect them, and the insurance companies charge premiums in relation to the protection the doctor needs, so the cost is a factor. Same with the actual health insurance company and the premium they charge to pay for the patients bills (and an FYI health insurance companies have one of the lowest profit margins of any business it’s under 3%)

Doctors also have to charge an arm and a leg because of the administrative costs associated with billing health insurers, which are burdensome indeed, as some of our readers and perhaps yourself already know.

Not knocking you for not reading the whole thread but I made that point earlier.

Whatever. There's a lot of misinformation out there about what's in the actual ACA; the brand-neutral website factcheck.org posted this awhile back to help clear things up.

Factcheck is not 100% non-partisan btw, I saw the CEO or whatever he was admit they try to be but aren’t always successful. But my point had nothing to do with illegal immigrants getting federal money. My point was, if we enforced our laws, they wouldn’t be here to get free ER care and the bills they don’t pay won’t get passed to others.

Many service providers have to deal with providing services to people who don't pay. Why should they be different from lawyers, plumbers, or house painters? Do they need special protection from deadbeats? I don't see this as a real issue, just something petty to whine about for someone who has already made up his mind.

But that cost gets passed on to you. Which is the point of mandating people by health insurance isn’t it? So people pay their bills and the cost goes down? I know maybe we can make people by lawyer insurance or plumber insurance so their unpaid bills don’t get passed on to us???

Yeah, you read your sources, I'll read mine.

So your argument is, confirmation bias? It’s very simple. “Employers will find it cheaper to pay the fine because the rise in premiums (for many reason, covering per-existing conditions, colonoscopy's mammograms with no copay). The plans then become too expensive for individuals who then pay the fine getting put in to the healthcare exchange, causing insurance companies to go out of business.”

Heh. The court spent an entire day hearing arguments on what would happen if they hypothetically struck down part of the law but not all of it, and you're telling me that's not going under the hood?

They did that to discuss severability. And if they went through to see what they would or would not severe that would be “going under the hood”. If they find the mandate unconstitutional they need to scrap the whole thing and let congress start over.

[wickedsolo]

That’s not entirely true. I’ve had times as has my wife where we’ve needed to go to the doctor and not had insurance. She broke her foot and all we had to do was pay for the visit and walking boot etc.

Matter of fact, recently, even though I had insurance I asked a tech who was doing some work how much things would cost if I paid cash, she said it was 40% less. Main reasons were less paperwork, bureaucracy, no need to pay someone to bill the insurance company fight with the insurance company and then come after the patient for the rest.

I get you man, I do, but a majority of the population that doesn't have insurance also doesn't have the money (or doesn't want to pay) to cover the costs of the service.

I haven't really read a whole lot about it because it seems like there is no point if they're going to force everyone to do it anyway, but I feel like insurance should be relevant to the person's health and it should be reflective in the costs. For example, my wife and I rarely get sick. The only time we have needed a doctor in the recent past was when I tore my shoulder. Neither of us smoke, we don't drink much, we're active, we eat a lot of organic foods...

Just seems to me that insurance for folks like us should have more options that are reflective in the costs than for someone who say has chronic arthritis or is a pack-a-day kind of guy.

[festivus]

It's out of our hands.

It could go either way. It's interesting, it's exciting, it's important. The funny thing is, it likely all comes down to one man:
220px-Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg

Very easy to oversimplify and say X or Y is obviously right and only a fool would disagree. Very easy. The only thing I know for sure is the majority opinion will be scholarly and well supported by precedent. Which way it goes I wouldn't guess.

The oral arguments are not a spectator sport, where the Justices put on a show for us to deliberately give us clues how they will vote. Heck, we can't even guess what people are thinking when we watch them play *football*, and we're actually as smart as some of those guys.

Anyway. I think I'm done here.

Carry on.

[NCRAVEN]

I get you man, I do, but a majority of the population that doesn't have insurance also doesn't have the money (or doesn't want to pay) to cover the costs of the service.

My main problem with the law is the mandate/penalty there are several other problems I have with it but that's number 1. Like you pointed out earlier if they don't have the money for insurance now how do they pay the fine?

I haven't really read a whole lot about it because it seems like there is no point if they're going to force everyone to do it anyway

This is very sad to me. Seriously, are we so used to government overstepping their limits we just give in.

From the epilogue of "Ameritopia"
"The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal... "

but I feel like insurance should be relevant to the person's health and it should be reflective in the costs. For example, my wife and I rarely get sick. The only time we have needed a doctor in the recent past was when I tore my shoulder. Neither of us smoke, we don't drink much, we're active, we eat a lot of organic foods...

I agree to a point and most insurance does work that way but you pay them to protect you for things that you don't have the funds for accidents, cancer treatments etc.

[AirFlacco]

Festus didn't read any of the thread because we said that a long time ago about Kennedy being the swing vote and why and I went into great detail about him and why he was appointed. Several of us including Galen also added Roberts as a swing vote.

We also mentioned how the commerce clause was important because the mandate had to fall within it to be legal so there is
a dispute there. Another words, it's the commerce clause that gives the congress the authority to inact the mandate and thus the broccoli example brought up by Roberts. Liberals
argue that it does while conservatives argue it doesn't and can
force us to buy anything like, well, broccoli.


We also said Kennedy left the back door open
on that point as Verilli got stronger at the end while adamantly sticking to his point and Kennedy seemed satisified with his answer. We also quoted Kennedy as saying this is unique legislation leaving the back door opened once again.

That said, OBY threatening him because he's not sure is a sure
way to lose him. Stupid idiot. Somebody like Kagan obviously
leaked the vote to him and he's so upset. Otherwise, he was be
happy as a lark and wouldn't say anything.


Festus missed many other points as NC mentioned.

[AirFlacco]

SOLO - You need two things to survive in this world:

1. good credit
2. good insurance

When I was your age I didn't think I needed it. We have another
poster here who says he is young and he doesn't have it at all and
hates being forced to buy it.

But when I was 25 I had unexpected surgury. You never know when you need it so you get it or should even when you're young. I was laid off for a year at 30 and still had a policy thru Metropolitan and paid for it out of my savings. I got Simonella and was in the hospital for 10 days. The bill came to $4700 and MET paid all of it.

You just never know and if you plan to have children, your wife
will really need that coverage.

Just saying - ya know.

[wickedsolo]

Ha! I wish someone had explained the whole credit thing to me when I was younger because even though I'm only 29 right now, my credit was not something I took seriously until about 2-3 years ago.

I actually wish that high schools would employ some classwork stuff on credit, money management, etc. When I was in highschool, not THAT long ago, there really were not any classes or instructions or anything regarding credit and how to manage it. It's a shame because a lot of kids really squander good opportunities to solidify their credit early on.

[Galen Sevinne]

Its still a 6-3 uphold of the law.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[festivus]

We also mentioned how the commerce clause was important because the mandate had to fall within it to be legal so there is
a dispute there. Another words, it's the commerce clause that gives the congress the authority to inact the mandate and thus the broccoli example brought up by Roberts. Liberals
argue that it does while conservatives argue it doesn't and can
force us to buy anything like, well, broccoli.

...

Festus missed many other points as NC mentioned.

Just because you didn't understand my posts, AirFlacco, doesn't mean I missed points. I didn't read the thread, true, but I certainly addressed this point about broccoli, which is interesting but the act of repeating yourself doesn't mean I didn't address it.

I should have resisted & left you on "ignore," and not read this post.

/shrug.

What's done is done, my eyes are bleeding and I must fetch the bandages.

[AirFlacco]

Next time try read the thread before repeating stuff already said.

Reading can be difficult Festus.

[JStruds]

Next time try read the thread before repeating stuff already said.

Reading can be difficult Festus.

Love thy neighbor Trap.

[Galen Sevinne]

What do you want?

A mandate that forces the individual to pay for their health insurance OR,

an unfunded mandate (EMTALA) that forces YOU to pay for the individual to who refuses to cover their own health risk?

It's about $1000 a year per person for EMTALA while it is about $750 fine for the individual who chooses to exercise their "liberty" by having me cover their health risk.

Try to be smart folks.