Jump to content


Obama Care Act and the Supreme Court


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#1 shut.up.and.drive

shut.up.and.drive

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:21 AM

http://www.scientifi...rguments&page=1

The U.S. Supreme Court is a busy place this time of year. So when the justices announced that, starting March 26, they would hear six hours of arguments on the health care reform law—the most time it has dedicated to any one case in decades—the gravitas of the issue became clear to all.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is perhaps the most profound change to health care since Medicaid was instituted in 1965. "This case deserves the hype it's getting," says Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in Saint Louis School of Law..........

#2 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,095 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 24 March 2012 - 09:50 AM

Individual health
Much of the outcry about the PPACA has centered on a need to preserve individual rights—that is, no law should require that people get health coverage. But the case before the court, Magarian explains, "isn't about that at all." The question in front of the Court pertains to state rights. "I think that would surprise a lot of people." This confusion, he posits, might be behind some of the recent polls that show about two thirds of Americans favor repealing the whole law part and parcel. As Levitt points out, if the Court overturns the PPACA, the states are well within their constitutional bounds to require their residents to purchase health insurance (as they already do with auto insurance).

Essentially is the Court must grapple the question of congressional power—and whether it can regulate interstate business to this extent. ...



If this is an attempt to summarize the issues before the court, it is the worst one I have ever seen.

One of the biggest questions before the court IS whether a federal law can require individuals to buy health insurance. That is a question of federal power versus individual rights, not state powers or rights.

#3 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,829 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 24 March 2012 - 11:17 AM

so the federal goverment cant force some one to take out insurance, but a state government can?

#4 learningj24

learningj24

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 11:28 AM

so the federal goverment cant force some one to take out insurance, but a state government can?


Slaughterhouse cases. The Federal government cannot violate your enumerated rights but the state government can.

#5 cmilliken

cmilliken

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,125 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:38 PM


so the federal goverment cant force some one to take out insurance, but a state government can?


Slaughterhouse cases. The Federal government cannot violate your enumerated rights but the state government can.



That's basically true.

The sort of underlying concept is that if you don't like a state law, you can, through democratic means, change the law or, in the worst case, move to a different state. So, generally yes, the states are SUPPOSE to have more power relative to your life and liberty than the federal government.

#6 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,422 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:48 PM

so the federal goverment cant force some one to take out insurance, but a state government can?

What insurance do states currently force on all their citizens?

#7 Anthonyvop

Anthonyvop

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Location:Miami, Florida

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:51 PM

so the federal goverment cant force some one to take out insurance, but a state government can?


States can't force you either.

Those who favor socialized medicine always make that claim and cite Auto Insurance but NOBODY is forcing all its citizens to buy Auto Insurance. You only have to have insurance to drive a car on the public roads so it is totally voluntary.

#8 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:56 PM

In today's WaPo, Ezra Klein points out that the structure of the insurance markets and premium support in the Obama law and Ryan's proposal for Medicare are virtually identical, i.e., both drawn from the perennial Republican reform plank. The difference is that Obama wants to impose it on those under 65 and Ryan on those over. Klein further speculates that a SCOTUS defeat for the the Obama law will tip the balance in favor of single payer, that is, the current Medicare model, for everyone. I'm not sure I see single payer happening any time soon, but the facts need to be clear to everyone.

I can't find the piece on the Post site.

#9 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:10 PM

It seems to be all about how to beat around the bush.....

That is, maybe the law cannot mandate insurance, but then the Fed. Government can withhold certain grants and payments to states unless they adopt their own plans.

Mittens is 100% for mandates. Don't forget that the whole plan was hatched by the Heritage Foundation.

If the Supremes nix it, the law still goes into effect, but we go further into debt- something the GOP seems to crave. They don't like responsibility when someone else does it.

#10 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,422 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:14 PM

In today's WaPo, Ezra Klein points out that the structure of the insurance markets and premium support in the Obama law and Ryan's proposal for Medicare are virtually identical, i.e., both drawn from the perennial Republican reform plank. The difference is that Obama wants to impose it on those under 65 and Ryan on those over. Klein further speculates that a SCOTUS defeat for the the Obama law will tip the balance in favor of single payer, that is, the current Medicare model, for everyone. I'm not sure I see single payer happening any time soon, but the facts need to be clear to everyone.

I can't find the piece on the Post site.

I thought Ryans left it alone for those 55 and older, with an option to move to a different plan if they wanted.

#11 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,980 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:22 PM


so the federal goverment cant force some one to take out insurance, but a state government can?

What insurance do states currently force on all their citizens?

Massachusetts: (See Romneycare)

#12 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:26 PM


In today's WaPo, Ezra Klein points out that the structure of the insurance markets and premium support in the Obama law and Ryan's proposal for Medicare are virtually identical, i.e., both drawn from the perennial Republican reform plank. The difference is that Obama wants to impose it on those under 65 and Ryan on those over. Klein further speculates that a SCOTUS defeat for the the Obama law will tip the balance in favor of single payer, that is, the current Medicare model, for everyone. I'm not sure I see single payer happening any time soon, but the facts need to be clear to everyone.

I can't find the piece on the Post site.

I thought Ryans left it alone for those 55 and older, with an option to move to a different plan if they wanted.

Yes, I think you're right and I'm not slinging shit here. The point is that we seem to have been able to come up with only one alternative to the untenable status quo and the anathematic single payer for all. Rejecting a structured insurance market and premium support for one group might endanger it for another.

And sorry, my libertarian friends and colleagues, a free health care market doesn't seem to be getting much love.

#13 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:01 PM

Ryans plan breaks a big promise to those who already put in 25-30+ years of work and money.......into the plan.

It tries to balance the accounts on the backs of folks with fewer capabilities (cognitive, health, etc.), while giving more breaks to millionaires.

The "free market" does not take bad bets - and old people are bad bets. The very idea that an 80 year old is going to have "choice" in the marketplace and that their 8K per year voucher is gonna buy care which costs 20K per year is pretty silly.

Then again, some people don't understand math, the human body or cognitive decline.

Just for a bit of input on what money will buy in terms of insurance for elders, our insurance with high deductibles and not covering teeth, eyes, etc. is about 7K per person per year at 58 years old. It would be closer to 10K per person if all health care was taken into account. That figure makes sense based on the average USA figure of 8K per person per year (the average age is much younger than we are).

My guess is that it would take 20K plus per year to fully insure, in the free market, someone about 75-80 years old. Many would be uninsurable unless there was a MANDATE. Would the Ryan plan force free market corporations to insure old people?

Part of a compassionate society is to take care of little children and elders without exposing them to the predations of the "free market" jackals. Let's see if we can accomplish that.

EDIT - I looked it up, and yes - the cost of actual health care would triple from 45-64 population to 75-84.

So, folks, which type of socialism do you prefer. Ryans plan would pay 1/3 of costs....

#14 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,980 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:48 PM

It seems to be all about how to beat around the bush.....

That is, maybe the law cannot mandate insurance, but then the Fed. Government can withhold certain grants and payments to states unless they adopt their own plans.

Mittens is 100% for mandates. Don't forget that the whole plan was hatched by the Heritage Foundation.

If the Supremes nix it, the law still goes into effect, but we go further into debt- something the GOP seems to crave. They don't like responsibility when someone else does it.

In the long road to single payer, we needed to try the republican plan of mandates and have it run the courts. Once deemed unconstitutional, the flood gates will finally open for a national healthcare system. This is just a waypoint.

#15 cmilliken

cmilliken

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,125 posts

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:24 PM

Insurance, by it's very nature, makes the assumption that everyone pays in a little to offset the cost to one person of a catastrophic event. In other words, one of the fundamental underpinnings is that the average person pays for something never actually need.

That's a core problem because the only way people don't need health insurance is (a) they're very very wealthy or (b.) they die in such a way as to require almost no care –massive stroke, heart attack, accident, or some other nearly instantaneous death from which there is basically no chance of being saved. Any other end of life trajectory is going to 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars for a single event and millions for longer term care.

If, on average, every person is going to need 100's of thousands of dollars in care at the end of life, then insurance can no longer deal with the problem in anyc onventional definition. The math of survival tends to look much more like an investment portfolio and much less like an actuary table.


In the modern parlance, this is termed the need to 'expand the base'. Simply put, young healthy people tend to skip paying for their insurance when they're young and healthy and then look to buy insurance later in life because they're going to need it. The individual mandate will eliminate this choice. Pay now so you'll get it later - more like investing, less like insuring.

The lie, of course, is that the government, through a 'voucher' or tax credit, will offset the cost of this choice to the young and poor. They cannot. The math doesn't work. That's the demographic problem. Either average people - including the poor - are going to get taxed A LOT MORE or the costs at the end of life are going to have to dramatically be reduced. Cost of care is generally equated to quality of care. That's also an underpinning assumption and one of the primary ones that we, as a nation, are going to try and break. We'll see how it goes. That's the math problem that's so tough.

#16 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:42 PM

The lie, of course, is that the government, through a 'voucher' or tax credit, will offset the cost of this choice to the young and poor. They cannot. The math doesn't work. That's the demographic problem. Either average people - including the poor - are going to get taxed A LOT MORE or the costs at the end of life are going to have to dramatically be reduced. Cost of care is generally equated to quality of care. That's also an underpinning assumption and one of the primary ones that we, as a nation, are going to try and break. We'll see how it goes. That's the math problem that's so tough.


A voucher cannot work - as you say.
Either can free market care - unless it is within a highly regulated framework, which is not free market.

#17 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,255 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 25 March 2012 - 07:52 AM

Klein further speculates that a SCOTUS defeat for the the Obama law will tip the balance in favor of single payer, that is, the current Medicare model, for everyone.


Perhaps that was the plan all along. And I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing. I think if we did single payer correctly - we would ALL see our net costs go down, not up.

#18 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 11:39 AM


Klein further speculates that a SCOTUS defeat for the the Obama law will tip the balance in favor of single payer, that is, the current Medicare model, for everyone.


Perhaps that was the plan all along. And I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing. I think if we did single payer correctly - we would ALL see our net costs go down, not up.

I like single payer, but I have come to the conclusion that it is not politically realistic in this country and we had better try to work within a premium support framework. ...and I'm not optimistic about that either, politically or economically, given the power of the interests who will lose benefits and profits under any cost-saving regime.

#19 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,588 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 11:55 AM

When we fail, we won’t be funding a federally managed healthcare system of any kind. We will be block-granting to the states, closing federal agencies and privatizing entire departments.

#20 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:24 PM

When we fail, we won't be funding a federally managed healthcare system of any kind. We will be block-granting to the states, closing federal agencies and privatizing entire departments.

Are you joking?

I'm referring to mainstream Republican proposals on health care, not libertarian fantasy. ...and you'll fail in everything except directing government payments to commercial interests via citizens, if those proposals don't succeed.

Incidentally, how many departments is Romney proposing to privatize? I haven't been paying attention.

#21 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,588 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:39 PM

When I refer to failure I mean as in Greece. When that happens our federal government will get much smaller very fast.

#22 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 03:30 PM

When I refer to failure I mean as in Greece. When that happens our federal government will get much smaller very fast.

Ah, sorry. I pretty much agree.

#23 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 05:08 PM


When I refer to failure I mean as in Greece. When that happens our federal government will get much smaller very fast.

Ah, sorry. I pretty much agree.

Greece is a terrible example. Their problems were exacerbated tremendously when applying to the EU. See just who helped cook the books and made bad loans to the degree that ship was destined to sink and sink badly. If Greece had been a company people would be in prison, being a country they could do it legally. Google "greece goldman sachs scandal" if you want to know what happened. It's yet another example of not too much government but lack of government regulation.

Similar to what brought on the debacle in the US (which spread to Europe) and was done by the US financial giants. As far as failure, the US is not Greece and not even close. The US is still the wealthiest country on the planet and is in no way comparable unless you are playing the "Liberals are Killing America" story.

#24 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 06:01 PM

Greece does have its own unique economic and cultural issues. However, if we're going to get picky, I also don't think our immediate reaction to a real debt crisis will be to privatize anything. That takes solvency.

#25 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,095 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:19 AM


Klein further speculates that a SCOTUS defeat for the the Obama law will tip the balance in favor of single payer, that is, the current Medicare model, for everyone.


Perhaps that was the plan all along.


Stupid plan. It won't work.

The last time the Supreme Court actually made a feint in the direction of limiting the commerce power of the federal government, they said this:

US v Lopez
April 26, 1995

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3.





...




But to the extent that congressional findings would enable us to evaluate the legislative judgment that the activity in question substantially affected interstate commerce, even though no such substantial effect was visible to the naked eye, they are lacking here. [n.4]


They overturned a previous version of the gun free school zones act, leaving the current one untouched on the books, because it was not a regulation of commerce and because no one told them about the effects on commerce. The current version of the gun free school zones act, like the Obamacare law, has Congressional findings saying they are regulating commerce.

IF the plan really were to pass this law in order to see it overturned, all they had to do was leave out the findings. A long time ago in a thread you started on the Senate version of the health care law, I pointed out that one version had the findings and the other did not. They kept the one with the Congressional findings, and I seem to be the only one who noticed. It would have been easy to keep the other one. Believe me, Scalia WILL notice.

#26 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,255 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:54 AM

They overturned a previous version of the gun free school zones act, leaving the current one untouched on the books, because it was not a regulation of commerce and because no one told them about the effects on commerce. The current version of the gun free school zones act, like the Obamacare law, has Congressional findings saying they are regulating commerce.

I'm sorry, but HOW exactly are gun free school zones regulating commerce???

#27 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,503 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:42 PM

What they've done in the past is of no importance in this case. The Justices know which team they are on, and will behave accordingly. They don't have to worry about the wrath of the insurance lobby. They will restore our socialized health care system in all its glory, and they will not take long to do so.

#28 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:41 PM



YEP.

#29 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,588 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:19 PM

Maybe not such a good start for the administration.
http://hotair.com/ar...ent-on-mandate/

#30 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:27 PM

Maybe not such a good start for the administration.
http://hotair.com/ar...ent-on-mandate/


This part was particularly interesting:

Justice Sam Alito asked Verrilli whether he could point to another case in which courts identified something as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act while still ruling it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power. Verrilli could not name any.

"That doesn't bode well for ObamaCare advocates. If the mandate gets struck as a constitutional overreach, then regardless of whether the Supreme Court finds severability or not, the entire structure of ObamaCare collapses. It will hasten momentum for its repeal, and insurers will switch sides to demand its complete rejection."



#31 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,503 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:40 PM

Link to audio file of the argument.

For those that prefer to listen and think for themselves.

#32 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,588 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:05 PM

Link to audio file of the argument.

For those that prefer to listen and think for themselves.

Should I burn my copy of Plato’s Republic?

#33 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,503 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:08 PM


Link to audio file of the argument.

For those that prefer to listen and think for themselves.

Should I burn my copy of Plato’s Republic?

Only if you cannot read and think for yourself.

#34 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:10 PM

"That doesn't bode well for ObamaCare advocates. If the mandate gets struck as a constitutional overreach, then regardless of whether the Supreme Court finds severability or not, the entire structure of ObamaCare collapses. It will hasten momentum for its repeal, and insurers will switch sides to demand its complete rejection."



The mandate was created for the big insurance companies - you are correct about that!

If the mandate goes down then the government certainly had the right to raise the missing revenues from plain old taxation - in fact, it will have the "mandate" to do so, because the law is law.

As far as repeal, that's quite a long shot. You'd have to have serious majorities in Congress and the Presidency.

I suppose the right will be complaining about Health Care in 50 years...same way they are still against SS and Medicare. Meanwhile, countless lives will be improved and saved.

Nothing new here.

#35 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:13 PM

Link to audio file of the argument.

For those that prefer to listen and think for themselves.


Holy smokes! Tom, help me out here...what in tarnation are these here people a-jabbering about?

#36 saxdog

saxdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,634 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:31 PM

Agree with Sol. Although i think the eventual decision depends on which team Kennedy decides to play for.

#37 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,503 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:36 PM

Agree with Sol. Although i think the eventual decision depends on which team Kennedy decides to play for.

They do whatever they want. Gotta support the team.

#38 saxdog

saxdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,634 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:23 PM


Agree with Sol. Although i think the eventual decision depends on which team Kennedy decides to play for.

They do whatever they want. Gotta support the team.


There is no chance Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito will vote to uphold the individual mandate. Neither will Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan vote against it. That leaves the other justices making this decision.

It's hard to see the individual mandate surviving which leaves the larger question of whether or not the court will invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act by declaring the only part that makes it work unconstitutional. Invalidating the individual mandate without killing the entire act this will create an epic mess because healthy individuals will be able to elect not to buy coverage and skew insurance pools towards individuals with health problems. Does the Court have grounds to invalidate the entire act? Is that question being debated?

#39 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:49 PM

There is no chance Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito will vote to uphold the individual mandate. Neither will Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan vote against it. That leaves the other justices making this decision.

It's hard to see the individual mandate surviving which leaves the larger question of whether or not the court will invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act by declaring the only part that makes it work unconstitutional. Invalidating the individual mandate without killing the entire act this will create an epic mess because healthy individuals will be able to elect not to buy coverage and skew insurance pools towards individuals with health problems. Does the Court have grounds to invalidate the entire act? Is that question being debated?


I can't claim to be a SCOTUS expert, but I don't think they "invalidate" laws as you mention above....

They are basically cowards at heart and will likely punt long before they do something like that.

My guess only, of course. They can come out with some long winded opinion that ends up not really changing much.





#40 Joker

Joker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:42 AM



#41 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,539 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:24 AM

Agree with Sol. Although i think the eventual decision depends on which team Kennedy decides to play for.


I hope the eventual decision will reflect thoughtful jurisprudence and not political BS. That's for the legislative and executive branches.

We have separation of powers for a reason, and this court seems pretty balanced. Whatever the ruling, I'll continue to be thankful for the checks and balances in the system.

Anyone who believes this Supreme Court consideration is about health care is misguided. This is about the power of the Fed and the Constitution.

#42 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:28 AM



Irrelevant.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



#43 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:48 PM

Today:


"That changes the relationship of the individual to the federal government," Kennedy said.


Hmmm.


#44 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,503 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:56 PM

The Court had a nice trend of favoring states' rights and limited federal intrusion into state matters ... and threw it out the window in Bush v. Gore. I'm guessing that the Court will rediscover it's desire to keep the Feds out of state affairs, in much the same way that so many of our current proponents of small government rediscovered their desire for that on 1/20/09. They know which team they are on.

#45 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:57 PM

The vote very well could go on party lines - which, again, proves nothing except that the SCOTUS has become yet another partisan tool.

#46 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,553 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:58 PM

Whatever the ruling (and I expect the individual mandate to get tossed) this election(for the congress) will be about healthcare and what we can/should do about it.

Do we continue to bankrupt ourselves
or go to single payer with voluntary add ons like all other countries


It's pretty clear that we cannot afford the status quo

#47 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,697 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:35 PM

Whatever the ruling (and I expect the individual mandate to get tossed) this election(for the congress) will be about healthcare and what we can/should do about it.

Do we continue to bankrupt ourselves
or go to single payer with voluntary add ons like all other countries


It's pretty clear that we cannot afford the status quo



i agree, we will end up with single payer. and the only question is how, and when, we get there.

if the mandate requirement gets overturned - and i think it should be - that will move us one step closer to single payer.

as i have asked here before...; if we were designing a healthcare system from scratch today..., would we really design one in which an employer basically becomes responsible for a good portion (sometimes all) off their employee's (and employee's dependents) health care costs?

i really don't think so.

i support a system like public school - most people are in the public system, but those who want to buy private care can do so.

everyone will pay the taxes that fund the public system - no opting out of taxes for people who choose private care.

#48 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:16 PM

The Court had a nice trend of favoring states' rights and limited federal intrusion into state matters ... and threw it out the window in Bush v. Gore. I'm guessing that the Court will rediscover it's desire to keep the Feds out of state affairs, in much the same way that so many of our current proponents of small government rediscovered their desire for that on 1/20/09. They know which team they are on.


Listened to CNN a bit. Toobin is saying Kennedy and four other justices were very hostile, and it's all but over. A "train-wreck for Obama". He's either right, or is going to lose a lot of personal credibility as an ace legal analyst.

#49 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:23 PM


The Court had a nice trend of favoring states' rights and limited federal intrusion into state matters ... and threw it out the window in Bush v. Gore. I'm guessing that the Court will rediscover it's desire to keep the Feds out of state affairs, in much the same way that so many of our current proponents of small government rediscovered their desire for that on 1/20/09. They know which team they are on.


Listened to CNN a bit. Toobin is saying Kennedy and four other justices were very hostile, and it's all but over. A "train-wreck for Obama". He's either right, or is going to lose a lot of personal credibility as an ace legal analyst.


He also suggested that if the court does side with the government, the swing vote might end up being Roberts voting with the liberals and not Kennedy.

#50 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:46 PM

i agree, we will end up with single payer. and the only question is how, and when, we get there.

if the mandate requirement gets overturned - and i think it should be - that will move us one step closer to single payer.

It is pretty funny that conservatives will have deprived themselves of the one tool they had for rationalizing the health care system. No quasi-market system has a chance of saving money without near 100% buy-in. I can't wait until the national discussion focuses on the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare and people say, "Great idea! Why won't it work for the rest of us?" There are going to be some amazing rationalizations offered for why those under 65 require the status quo for their survival.

As for single payer, yes, but only after a huge debt crisis, which leaves 30-40% of the population uninsured.

#51 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:53 PM

They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People. The market will always find the best system, as we all know.

What the insurance companies will do with that should be interesting to watch. They know were that stuff is leading.

#52 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:00 PM

They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People. The market will always find the best system, as we all know.

What the insurance companies will do with that would be interesting to watch. They know were that stuff is leading.

No serious politician will advocate single payer again for years, but it will be the first and last proposal in a real crisis.

I don't know, but I imagine the insurance companies have their eyes on Medicare.

#53 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:24 PM

They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.

#54 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:28 PM

Nanny, your homework assignment is to research the term, regulatory capture.
If you want extra credit, you should also look at rent seeking.

#55 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:30 PM


They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.

Simplistic Nannyspeak.

Wall Street? That problem was fixed after the crash of '29. When no more crashes occurred the government got out of regulation.

So much for leaving markets alone. You seem to have a real problem with "Elitists". Perhaps you could seek some help for that.

#56 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:32 PM

It is pretty funny that conservatives will have deprived themselves of the one tool they had for rationalizing the health care system. No quasi-market system has a chance of saving money without near 100% buy-in.


1970's - Nixon explores individual mandate.

1989 - Heritage Foundation and conservatives suggest individual mandate as answer to health care problem. When asked now about that, the folks who wrote it "defended their work as a product of different political times"

1990-2008 - Many top conservatives, from Newt to Sen. Grassley promote the individual mandate as the answer to "the freeloaders". Never is anything mentioned abou the road toward socialism.


2006 - Ma. institutes the ind. mandate, courtesy of a GOP Gov. whose company makes billions in the health care biz.

2009 - Obama Elected

2010 - Individual mandate described as socialist, communist, unconstitutional, a pox America - the single biggest action against our freedoms, etc. etc.

Notice any trends.....???



#57 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:34 PM



They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.

Simplistic Nannyspeak.

Wall Street? That problem was fixed after the crash of '29. When no more crashes occurred the government got out of regulation.

So much for leaving markets alone. You seem to have a real problem with "Elitists". Perhaps you could seek some help for that.

Probably shouldn't be hanging around with the sailing set if that's the case.

#58 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:35 PM

The putative fact that regulation doesn't work in a given case doesn't imply that laissez-faire does. We may just be fucked.

#59 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,588 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:35 PM


They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People. The market will always find the best system, as we all know.

What the insurance companies will do with that would be interesting to watch. They know were that stuff is leading.

No serious politician will advocate single payer again for years, but it will be the first and last proposal in a real crisis.

I don't know, but I imagine the insurance companies have their eyes on Medicare.

With the Greek debt crisis the single payer healthcare system was one of the first things to go. The IMF, European Union and the European Central Bank are requiring Greece to dismantle its single payer system as part of the austerity measures which are a precondition of a bailout. We’re not talking a bunch of right wing nuts here, maybe they know something.

#60 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:46 PM


They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.


Fareed Zakaria has an excellent special about fixing healthcare out right now. Taiwan's system seemed to me to be especially efficient.

#61 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:48 PM


They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People. The market will always find the best system, as we all know.

What the insurance companies will do with that would be interesting to watch. They know were that stuff is leading.

No serious politician will advocate single payer again for years, but it will be the first and last proposal in a real crisis.

I don't know, but I imagine the insurance companies have their eyes on Medicare.


As in "looking over their shoulders"? I think they have to know that if they should spiral in, it would replace them.

#62 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:49 PM

Nanny, your homework assignment is to research the term, regulatory capture.
If you want extra credit, you should also look at rent seeking.


I've written on these subjects many times on this blog including starting more than one thread dealing with the issue.

Rent seeking is a supply problem, and the cure is a less powerful government lessened in its ability to supply them. Free markets. Free people.

#63 C&C 115

C&C 115

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 949 posts
  • Location:Annapolis

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:51 PM



They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.


Fareed Zakaria has an excellent special about fixing healthcare out right now. Taiwan's system seemed to me to be especially efficient.


So you advocate a system from a country with an all powerful central government?

#64 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:51 PM

With the Greek debt crisis the single payer healthcare system was one of the first things to go. The IMF, European Union and the European Central Bank are requiring Greece to dismantle its single payer system as part of the austerity measures which are a precondition of a bailout. We’re not talking a bunch of right wing nuts here, maybe they know something.

You have a cite for that? You keep bringing up Greece when we are discussing the US. Do you have any idea of the difference between the two economies?

And are the experts you listen to the same ones that were saying 'all is well' right up the bus going over the cliff?

Sign me,
Curious.

#65 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:54 PM




They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.


Fareed Zakaria has an excellent special about fixing healthcare out right now. Taiwan's system seemed to me to be especially efficient.


So you advocate a system from a country with an all powerful central government?


Why does having an efficient healthcare system equate to having an "all powerful central government"?

#66 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:56 PM

You have a cite for that? You keep bringing up Greece when we are discussing the US. Do you have any idea of the difference between the two economies?

And are the experts you listen to the same ones that were saying 'all is well' right up the bus going over the cliff?

Sign me,
Curious.




Any excuse they can find to make us like Greece will do.......

After all, don't we just sit in the sun all day and collect pensions?

#67 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,838 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:02 PM


Nanny, your homework assignment is to research the term, regulatory capture.
If you want extra credit, you should also look at rent seeking.


I've written on these subjects many times on this blog including starting more than one thread dealing with the issue.

Rent seeking is a supply problem, and the cure is a less powerful government lessened in its ability to supply them. Free markets. Free people.


Blog?

#68 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:09 PM


Nanny, your homework assignment is to research the term, regulatory capture.
If you want extra credit, you should also look at rent seeking.


I've written on these subjects many times on this blog including starting more than one thread dealing with the issue.

Rent seeking is a supply problem, and the cure is a less powerful government lessened in its ability to supply them. Free markets. Free people.

The absolute last thing that a capitalist wants is a free market, hence rent seeking, hence regulatory capture.

I don't think you see how insurance companies are extracting economic rent from the health care system. I do. My doctor does. He says that "Insurance companies are in the business of not providing health care."

The problem is that insurance companies are trying to provide a public good. Private companies aren't so good at that.

#69 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:11 PM



They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.

Simplistic Nannyspeak.

Wall Street? That problem was fixed after the crash of '29. When no more crashes occurred the government got out of regulation.

So much for leaving markets alone. You seem to have a real problem with "Elitists". Perhaps you could seek some help for that.



Nope. Simple economics. Prices convey information, one of the great insights of 20th Century economists. Social engineering (the favorite democrat past time) has unintended consequences. Modern liberalism is in a nutshell a history of unintended consequences creating malinvestment, distorting markets and supplanting the chaotic wisdom of millions of individuals involved in un-coerced economic activity with top-down economic tyranny. Never works, never has.



#70 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:20 PM




They can't advocate single payer, not now. It would have to be Free Markets and Free People.


Don't count on it. Bureaucracy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever failure of government (as in market-distorting compassionate intervention) is used as an excuse to do more of what doesn't work. Lessons never learnt. There will be another statist "solution" to the problem of "healthcare", the problem with "housing", the problem with "Wall Street", left only to the imagination of the elitists who know best. Leaving people and markets alone is never an option for progressives. So, the war will go on.

Simplistic Nannyspeak.

Wall Street? That problem was fixed after the crash of '29. When no more crashes occurred the government got out of regulation.

So much for leaving markets alone. You seem to have a real problem with "Elitists". Perhaps you could seek some help for that.



Nope. Simple economics. Prices convey information, one of the great insights of 20th Century economists. Social engineering (the favorite democrat past time) has unintended consequences. Modern liberalism is in a nutshell a history of unintended consequences creating malinvestment, distorting markets and supplanting the chaotic wisdom of millions of individuals involved in un-coerced economic activity with top-down economic tyranny. Never works, never has.

So modern liberalism cause the crash of the US economy? You are freaking hilarious.

#71 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:24 PM



Nanny, your homework assignment is to research the term, regulatory capture.
If you want extra credit, you should also look at rent seeking.


I've written on these subjects many times on this blog including starting more than one thread dealing with the issue.

Rent seeking is a supply problem, and the cure is a less powerful government lessened in its ability to supply them. Free markets. Free people.

The absolute last thing that a capitalist wants is a free market, hence rent seeking, hence regulatory capture.

I don't think you see how insurance companies are extracting economic rent from the health care system. I do. My doctor does. He says that "Insurance companies are in the business of not providing health care."

The problem is that insurance companies are trying to provide a public good. Private companies aren't so good at that.



"With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves."
Milton Friedman


The regulation we want is therefore, is the regulation of the market. When deprived of their ability to extract rents from the federal government or from state governments, insurance companies would be forced to compete in a competitive marketplace, as is the case with almost every other good or service. The consumer / patient is the ultimate beneficiary. I am a physician, by the way, and I agree with your doctor. But the cure you offer, more regulation and intervention, is far worse than the disease. And the disease is iatrogenic in the first place.


#72 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,588 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:26 PM



With the Greek debt crisis the single payer healthcare system was one of the first things to go. The IMF, European Union and the European Central Bank are requiring Greece to dismantle its single payer system as part of the austerity measures which are a precondition of a bailout. We’re not talking a bunch of right wing nuts here, maybe they know something.

You have a cite for that? You keep bringing up Greece when we are discussing the US. Do you have any idea of the difference between the two economies?

And are the experts you listen to the same ones that were saying 'all is well' right up the bus going over the cliff?

Sign me,
Curious.

Of course:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/05/14/guess_what_greece_has_to_jettison__98467.html
I bring up Greece because it is the Canary in the coal mine and because Moe raised the issue of what will happen when our economy collapses.

#73 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:32 PM

Price signals is the term of art. Obama got slammed for using it in 2008 during his debate with McCain. Tea Party types just went nuts.

#74 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:38 PM

Re Greece, if I wanted to be flippant, I would ask about all the reduction in govt program that resulted from our great economic, financial, and fiscal crisis. Instead I will point out that Greece had a shaky, incompetent and corrupt government with no reputation of providing security for its citizens. Say what you will about ours, it is still and will continue to be the first place Americans turn when the shit hits the fan.

I will also predict that the debt crisis will take the form of a liquidity crisis based on fears about government default. That may hit the private sector first, leaving millions uninsured and the government relatively solvent, at least in the short term. Those who know more should correct me.

#75 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:43 PM




Nanny, your homework assignment is to research the term, regulatory capture.
If you want extra credit, you should also look at rent seeking.


I've written on these subjects many times on this blog including starting more than one thread dealing with the issue.

Rent seeking is a supply problem, and the cure is a less powerful government lessened in its ability to supply them. Free markets. Free people.

The absolute last thing that a capitalist wants is a free market, hence rent seeking, hence regulatory capture.

I don't think you see how insurance companies are extracting economic rent from the health care system. I do. My doctor does. He says that "Insurance companies are in the business of not providing health care."

The problem is that insurance companies are trying to provide a public good. Private companies aren't so good at that.



"With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves."
Milton Friedman


The regulation we want is therefore, is the regulation of the market. When deprived of their ability to extract rents from the federal government or from state governments, insurance companies would be forced to compete in a competitive marketplace, as is the case with almost every other good or service. The consumer / patient is the ultimate beneficiary. I am a physician, by the way, and I agree with your doctor. But the cure you offer, more regulation and intervention, is far worse than the disease. And the disease is iatrogenic in the first place.

Why do you think insurance companies would be forced to compete?

Since you are a physician, you have a lot of experience with insurance companies. Can you compare and contrast your experience with private Blue Cross type insurance companies and with public single payer Medicare?

If your complaint about Medicare is free market then you have to show how a private company offers a better product. That'd be awesome and I'd buy it. But it's been your experience, my doctor's experience and my experience that such is not the case. Private insurers offer a lousy product and it isn't the government's fault. It's the insurance companies' fault.

#76 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:48 PM




With the Greek debt crisis the single payer healthcare system was one of the first things to go. The IMF, European Union and the European Central Bank are requiring Greece to dismantle its single payer system as part of the austerity measures which are a precondition of a bailout. We’re not talking a bunch of right wing nuts here, maybe they know something.

You have a cite for that? You keep bringing up Greece when we are discussing the US. Do you have any idea of the difference between the two economies?

And are the experts you listen to the same ones that were saying 'all is well' right up the bus going over the cliff?

Sign me,
Curious.

Of course:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/05/14/guess_what_greece_has_to_jettison__98467.html
I bring up Greece because it is the Canary in the coal mine and because Moe raised the issue of what will happen when our economy collapses.

Well, it is an article where some guy says it was scrapped. Not saying it didn't happen but all I can find is a list of cuts including healthcare. Seems to be on the order of 13% to date.

I am in no way defending Greece, they had multiple problems before the crash and they were borrowing money (can you say Goldman Sachs) like there was no tomorrow while implementing all kinds of programs to keep the populace happy. There is no miracle button to push and just like when a LOT of people were going on about the "miracle" in Ireland it turned out to be built on hope and a shit load of borrowed money.

But the author of your link and you have something in common: you take Greece and extrapolate all their problems to the US. It isn't apples and oranges it's more like cumquats and watermelons.

#77 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:32 PM

Nancy Pelosi Flashback:


Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.




#78 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:44 PM

Nancy Pelosi Flashback:


Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

#79 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:45 PM

I am in no way defending Greece, they had multiple problems before the crash and they were borrowing money (can you say Goldman Sachs) like there was no tomorrow while implementing all kinds of programs to keep the populace happy. There is no miracle button to push and just like when a LOT of people were going on about the "miracle" in Ireland it turned out to be built on hope and a shit load of borrowed money.

From one of PA's biggest fans of BIG Government. You just can't make this shit up.
You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!

#80 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:08 PM


I am in no way defending Greece, they had multiple problems before the crash and they were borrowing money (can you say Goldman Sachs) like there was no tomorrow while implementing all kinds of programs to keep the populace happy. There is no miracle button to push and just like when a LOT of people were going on about the "miracle" in Ireland it turned out to be built on hope and a shit load of borrowed money.

From one of PA's biggest fans of BIG Government. You just can't make this shit up.
You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!


We are Greece minus 10 years, I figure.

#81 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:31 PM

You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!


When we go down in flames it will be because we paid triple for health care and too much for war.
That differs greatly from Greece, where their lack of any real economy created the mess.....

C'mon - at least make a cohesive argument based on something other than a talking point! You might even get someone interested in the POV.

BTW, one of the horrible "austerity measures" being taken in Greece is to raise the retirement age to 65. Yes.
Here in the USA, SS is available at 66 and headed up.

Keeping it simple - War and Health Care. As long as the right defends unlimited spending (heading to about 25% of our GDP) for both of those things, we're sinking fast.

#82 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:37 PM



I am in no way defending Greece, they had multiple problems before the crash and they were borrowing money (can you say Goldman Sachs) like there was no tomorrow while implementing all kinds of programs to keep the populace happy. There is no miracle button to push and just like when a LOT of people were going on about the "miracle" in Ireland it turned out to be built on hope and a shit load of borrowed money.

From one of PA's biggest fans of BIG Government. You just can't make this shit up.
You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!


We are Greece minus 10 years, I figure.

You guys live in a black and white world where you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your inability to differentiate between good government and big government makes discussion pointless.

The only reason I respond is because you make it so easy to yank your chains.

#83 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:40 PM

pffft. Now that is funny on several fronts.
There is no such thing as good government.

#84 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:43 PM


You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!


When we go down in flames it will be because we paid triple for health care and too much for war.
That differs greatly from Greece, where their lack of any real economy created the mess.....

C'mon - at least make a cohesive argument based on something other than a talking point! You might even get someone interested in the POV.

BTW, one of the horrible "austerity measures" being taken in Greece is to raise the retirement age to 65. Yes.
Here in the USA, SS is available at 66 and headed up.

Keeping it simple - War and Health Care. As long as the right defends unlimited spending (heading to about 25% of our GDP) for both of those things, we're sinking fast.


Talking points? I don't do talking points.
You make it sound like NOT having government sponsored healthcare will be our downfall. Now that right there is pretty damn funny.

#85 MoeAlfa

MoeAlfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:43 PM

Hey, folks, Greece, a small, corrupt, Mediterranean, republic, lied blatantly about its fiscal status to gain entry to the Euro club and then went nuts on the credit card with little equity and very little in the way of a private economy to back it up. We are certainly headed in an unsustainable direction and need to make serious changes, but the USG has huge assets and the country has a vibrant private sector and massive resources. Yes, we could crash and it could be very ugly. Will it resemble the Greek situation? Not much, in my layman's opinion.

#86 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,553 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:52 PM

pffft. Now that is funny on several fronts.
There is no such thing as good government.


Really? huh.

I would guess that Somalians are much better off than 'mericans then. Whodathunkit?

#87 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:53 PM



You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!


When we go down in flames it will be because we paid triple for health care and too much for war.
That differs greatly from Greece, where their lack of any real economy created the mess.....

C'mon - at least make a cohesive argument based on something other than a talking point! You might even get someone interested in the POV.

BTW, one of the horrible "austerity measures" being taken in Greece is to raise the retirement age to 65. Yes.
Here in the USA, SS is available at 66 and headed up.

Keeping it simple - War and Health Care. As long as the right defends unlimited spending (heading to about 25% of our GDP) for both of those things, we're sinking fast.


Talking points? I don't do talking points.
You make it sound like NOT having government sponsored healthcare will be our downfall. Now that right there is pretty damn funny.

Bullshit. You state that government should be cut 50% and then decline to say how it would be done. That is a talking point.

#88 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:58 PM




I am in no way defending Greece, they had multiple problems before the crash and they were borrowing money (can you say Goldman Sachs) like there was no tomorrow while implementing all kinds of programs to keep the populace happy. There is no miracle button to push and just like when a LOT of people were going on about the "miracle" in Ireland it turned out to be built on hope and a shit load of borrowed money.

From one of PA's biggest fans of BIG Government. You just can't make this shit up.
You are right, we aren't like Greece, when we go down in flames, there is no one who can bail us out.
Oh wait, we are America, too big to flail!


We are Greece minus 10 years, I figure.

You guys live in a black and white world where you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your inability to differentiate between good government and big government makes discussion pointless.

The only reason I respond is because you make it so easy to yank your chains.


Where do you get all those straw dogs? Do you operate a kennel?

#89 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 28 March 2012 - 12:00 AM

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson




#90 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 12:01 AM

Where do you get all those straw dogs? Do you operate a kennel?

Do you even know the definition of a straw dog?

#91 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 12:21 AM

Talking points? I don't do talking points.
You make it sound like NOT having government sponsored healthcare will be our downfall. Now that right there is pretty damn funny.


"Greece" is a talking point. Our situation has nothing in common with theirs. In fact, in many ways it's the complete opposite!

Them: non-productive
Us: Productive

Them: Few Resources
US: Blessed with vast resources

Them: Going broke because they don't work and were snowed by bankers
US: Going broke because we appointed corporations to our government..who have no end to the profits they must extract.

Different set of problems. No relationship at all.

#92 cmilliken

cmilliken

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,125 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:14 AM

Different peoples value things is different ways. A major problem with Greece is that's it's economy was based largely on Tourism. That means they road the disposable income bubble up and the austerity crash down. Tourism can be highly desirable but tends to be very volitile and also tends to be very labor intensive, two features that are very hard to moderate over time. People like to point to the 'German' model but quite frankly, how many 'finest in engineering' things do you honestly think the world needs to buy? Germany exist at the top of the European Union pyramid because there IS a pyramid. It's fine to talk about the best violinist ever but frankly, the world also NEEDS people that can file papers, and flip burgers, and drive earth moving equipment. Someone has to be that person and frankly, there's a lot more of them necessary in the world than the finest violinists. The problem with Greece is that they have ABSOLUTELY no way to compete in an industrial battle with the Germanys of the world.

That being said, I ask you... in 5 years, when you're tired of austerity, and hunkering down, and saving, and scrimping, and need to get away, are you heading to a Greecian Isle or to the Black Forest? Are you going to the Mediterranian or Baltic? Things tend to be cyclic.

The supreme court opened the door today to two interesting side-steps on the mandate. The first is that 'health care' may be more narrowly defined. You can make people buy burial plots because everyone will die but the insurance policy DOESN'T necessarily need to cover heart surgery because not everyone needs it. Everyone may need emergency care but not everyone needs a podiotrist. They could define the mandate as acceptable for the purchase of things that truly, everyone needs and leave everything else off. The second is that they could simply use this as a tool to revisit manditory care and toss the whole thing out saying that congress has no right right to force hospitals to provide a service that a customer hasn't paid for, therefor they need to right to make them pay in the first place.





#93 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,018 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:37 AM


Nancy Pelosi Flashback:


Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182


That's a great case study for all you idiots who call yourselves Democrats or Republicans.

Ben

#94 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:26 AM


Nancy Pelosi Flashback:

"Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcareref...sourceID=004182


Thanks, I was never for it.

Regardless, how is a proposal Heritage once made relevant to whether or not the mandate is Constitutional?

#95 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:29 AM



Nancy Pelosi Flashback:

"Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcareref...sourceID=004182




Thanks, I was never for it.

Regardless, how is a proposal Heritage once made relevant to whether or not the mandate is Constitutional? Wouldn't matter if Ronald Reagan proposed it, it is still unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate the purchase of anything. As Kennedy's question implied, support for such an idea would without a doubt fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and government. And there would be no turning back.

#96 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:51 AM




Nancy Pelosi Flashback:

"Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcareref...sourceID=004182




Thanks, I was never for it.

Regardless, how is a proposal Heritage once made relevant to whether or not the mandate is Constitutional? Wouldn't matter if Ronald Reagan proposed it, it is still unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate the purchase of anything. As Kennedy's question implied, support for such an idea would without a doubt fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and government. And there would be no turning back.


That's the gist. "Limiting principle" is what they were asking for on expansion of this government power.

If they can't find one, looks like the only thing the government can do to preserve the basic nature of our republic and create a coherent system is mandate a federal instead of a private program. There are no limits on taxation. Medicare expanded to everyone is certainly constitutional.

#97 NGS

NGS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 03:05 AM





Nancy Pelosi Flashback:

"Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcareref...sourceID=004182




Thanks, I was never for it.

Regardless, how is a proposal Heritage once made relevant to whether or not the mandate is Constitutional? Wouldn't matter if Ronald Reagan proposed it, it is still unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate the purchase of anything. As Kennedy's question implied, support for such an idea would without a doubt fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and government. And there would be no turning back.


That's the gist. "Limiting principle" is what they were asking for on expansion of this government power.

If they can't find one, looks like the only thing the government can do to preserve the basic nature of our republic and create a coherent system is mandate a federal instead of a private program. There are no limits on taxation. Medicare expanded to everyone is certainly constitutional.


Or scrap Medicare and Medicaid entirely and replace them by providing every family with catastrophic insurance (high deductible medical policy). An even better (and constitutional) approach.

#98 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 28 March 2012 - 03:08 AM



Nancy Pelosi Flashback:

"Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

...........Uh, yes Nancy, we are.



You should ask the Heritage Foundation. It seems you conservatives were for it before you were against it.

http://healthcareref...sourceID=004182


Thanks, I was never for it.

Regardless, how is a proposal Heritage once made relevant to whether or not the mandate is Constitutional?


Hmmm. Mandates. Saorsa posted an old one:


I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.


Note that you had to buy, store and maintain the equipment yourself. None of this shit about it only being a certain few who were permitted to hold weapons, everybody was expected to.

But the Supremes will weigh in on the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

#99 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 03:16 AM

Regardless, how is a proposal Heritage once made relevant to whether or not the mandate is Constitutional? Wouldn't matter if Ronald Reagan proposed it, it is still unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate the purchase of anything. As Kennedy's question implied, support for such an idea would without a doubt fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and government. And there would be no turning back.


Well, since the existing plan - without a public option - is the way it is due to GOP influence (they needed at least one vote and made attempts for many more) , it stands to reason that the Heritage Foundations and all the other who now claim to be the biggest FOES of the mandate....should have pushed for single payer or something else they considered constitutional.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation also pimps itself as the protector of the Constitution.

Heck, nothing wrong with a SCOTUS or other fights. I think what folks are commenting on is how something went from a plan pimped by most "conservative" leaders....to being ONLY something a socialist/communist would suggest.

That's quite a change of heart....

#100 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,398 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 03:16 AM

Or scrap Medicare and Medicaid entirely and replace them by providing every family with catastrophic insurance (high deductible medical policy). An even better (and constitutional) approach.


Nope. It would make much more sense to limit doctors wages the way the Taiwanese do. Can only charge $14 bucks a visit! Ours can and do charge hundreds of dollars. They have doctors that must work 6 days a week and 11 hours a day just to make ends meet! It doesn't get any better than that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users