1 Peggy? Is that you?

2 didn't they call that Major Medical

I hear oZfic's dad invented the term.

3 I still cannot understand how the waivers don't blow a hole right through this law.

4 If this does not get overturned, then it will get overturned when the first regular citizen sues Obama because he's a denied a waiver.

5 But....the conservative thing to do, would be to salvage the best parts of this Law.

6 Again, there is something that was going on at the time that Dems in Congress (and the President, I suppose) were acutely aware of - MedicAID was going under, especially in states that handed out "mandates" for things like fertility treatments, chiro, psych, yoga, whole foods, blah blah blah. I was fortunate, when dealing with my own infertility, that my employer was based in Washington DC -- and therefore was MANDATED to fully cover ALL my ART. (Coincidentally, my employer went bankrupt.) If OCare didn't expand these mandates, the "giving", liberal states with tons of mandates for coverage were having to show their asses. With OCare, all states are in the same, sinking, boat. This is very much the same policy attitude that our bright young VP was speaking to as regards manufacturing, btw.

7 I thought if we liked our coverage, we could keep our coverage.

What the fuck?!!?

8 the conservative thing to do, would be to salvage the best parts of this Law.

The best part of this law will be the big bright red letters on the front R_E_P_E_A_L_E_D

9 I pay for pregnancy coverage, and Mrs928 has had her tubes tied.  WTF.

10 Yes, allow major medical for the big stuff and pay out of pocket for the small stuff. If you can't afford major medical or you have a pre-existing condition you can get into a state-supported pool and then pay out of pocket up to the point where major medical kicks in. If you can't afford out of pocket and major medical, give health care vouchers (especially for children). Tie the whole thing to individuals rather than employers by eliminating the health care tax deduction.

11 >>>If this does not get overturned, then it will get overturned when the first regular citizen sues Obama because he's a denied a waiver. I'm not 100% sure this correct, but I believe waivers are only authorized for the period before the law is fully implemented. once the law is implemented in 2014 (I think), there are no more waivers.

12 Exactly. I've been using this argument for a long time. Essentially high deductible insurance plans have become illegal...except if they are provided to an individual by an employer. Can I use the word illegal or is undocumentable the right way to say it?

13  still cannot understand how the waivers don't blow a hole right through this law.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 30, 2012 03:40 PM (jUytm)

 

Equal treatment under the law right ?.... not Obama's union buddies

14

3
I still cannot understand how the waivers don't blow a hole right through this law.

 

I know! ....That's why I kept asking the other day, if anyone knew if the Waivers were even being brought up.

 

The general discussion before the Justices, has already gone off into tangential directions pertaining to the whole thing, and it's emplementation. .....So I don't see how this subject couldn't be brought up too. 

15 No more waivers after 2014? Do the Amish know about this?

16 OT, but ESPN's Henry Abbott runs a stat-based service analyzing Basketball. I dig statistical analysis. I assume they're liberals (like the BP guys) but if they keep it to a minimum it's cool.

 Anyways, Henry dropped this on his twitter:

Henry Abbott ‏ @TrueHoop

NBA's upcoming "green" event features people from the land of limos and private jets encouraging regular people to remember the planet.

 The Hypocrisy charge is getting mainstream, baby. Alright, back to Obamacare being a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable abomination.

17 Shit's about to get repealed.

18 once the law is implemented in 2014 (I think), there are no more waivers.

I thought I read something that said there would be no more waivers granted already.

19 I thought gay white Muslims were getting waivers?

20 Argh. The tweet is "NBA's upcoming "green" event features
people from the land of limos and private jets encouraging regular
people to remember the planet."

THEN, my response is:

The Hypocrisy charge is getting mainstream, baby. Alright, back to Obamacare being a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable abomination.

21 The above is definitely a great argument.

22

Fair enough Ace, but doesn't this just allow Obummer and co. to roll back and mandate only Major Medical (which IMHO would still be a travasty of law.)  Framing this way seems to be that the Law mandates too much, not that it mandates something at all (which is where I have problems.)

Although that does raise a more interesting question, if the law had only madated catastrophic coverage (say 10k annual deductible) would people have cared as much?  Alternatively, would people care if the Government used it's "taxing" power to tax whatever said premium is and provide that?  (I'm NOT advocating for this, just raising rhetorical questions!)

23 Woman vs. Woman? Rowr.

24 The GOP is doing the same to us with their candidates, taking away our freedom to choose the best choice for ourselves. We get stuck paying for something we don't really want.

25 This. THIS! I love my HSA (similar in many respects to Major Medical). It gave us the ability to take our daughter to the best pediatric cardiac surgeon in the Midwest (where we were living at the time). We have to pay out of pocket for most other things. It would be nice to have that crap covered too, but it's more important to us to know that we could get the best doctors and surgeons for our kids just by hopping on a plane. If we would have had a conventional, Obama-approved policy, we would have been stuck with the only hospital in the state that did her operation....with a surgeon we didn't like and didn't want near our kid unless we had no other option. Our HSA won't fly under Obamacare. So much for the "if you like it you can keep it" bullsh@t. If this gets struck down (please, please, please!) and we do get to keep our coverage.....Imma gonna surprise my sweetie with some rich, creamy, chocolate pudding......

26 >>>Fair enough Ace, but doesn't this just allow Obummer and co. to roll back and mandate only Major Medical (which IMHO would still be a travasty of law.) Framing this way seems to be that the Law mandates too much, not that it mandates something at all (which is where I have problems.) What do you mean? "Obummer and co." cannot just "Roll back" a law by their own authority. it takes an act of congress. as far as too much or at all -- look, I just want to win THIS case. Further, judges are not pamphleteers. They do not seek to lay down Major Principles. They endeavor to rule on the narrowest grounds possible.

27 I actually think the Dems in Congress get tripped up on their own duplicity- The Tax/ Not A Tax "Penalty" crapola. Where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to regulate a non-activity? Where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to essentially tax a non-activity? And unfortunately you have to sound crazy and argue both instances because as usual the Liberals are trying to have it both ways.

28 There's a line out the door at the 7-11 of people paying the stupid tax.

29 The problem here is the Commerce Clause.  It needs to be fixed like Nancy Pelosi's botoxed face.

30 Actually, I made this point in mocking the Vermin and said that since they hinged everything on people going to the Emergency room without insurance then all they were really arguing to be able to mandate would be "emergency room insurance".

31 Ace and the rest of wingtards do not understand that Obamacare is constitutional under the "Necessary Free Shit Clause" of the New Abridged Living Breathing Constitution.  Its there man.  Believe it!  The four liberal Jurist know it and feel it in their hearts because the Constitution is about what wise Latinas feel in their heart and the feel the free shit.

32 This goes right in with what I keep begging for the pols to do after this is either found unconst'l or repealed (crossing self, etc.): Divorce insurance from job. We pay more than it's worth, the docs get paid less than they charge, and the insurance companies clean up and employer corps cackle when they have to pay us less in salary and less in taxes b/c of $ spent on "our" health insurance.

If everybody bought their own insurance, the companies would be falling over themselves to offer us cheap Major Medical plans and then doctors would be falling over themselves to lower the price of a "my kid has the flu" visit or a "this thingy here looks really weird but it doesn't hurt and doesn't itch" visit because people wouldn't take those visits any more if they had to pay over $100 for them themselves.

33 If this gets struck down (please, please, please!) and we do get to keep our coverage.....Imma gonna surprise my sweetie with some rich, creamy, chocolate pudding......

Reminds me of the Near Eastern custom of handing out candy to your friends. I only ever did this once (when Abu Abbas died - but then, I'm twisted like that).

34

"major medical"

 

No, what Carvin's talking about is HDHP's (High Deductible Health Plans), aka HSA's.

 

And he's correct.

35 Yes, this is a very good argument.

Team Conservatism was looking pretty weak in the presidential election, but man did we show up to play at SCOTUS.

36

If you go to a hospital and don't have coverage, don't they bill you? Don't they set up payment plans if necessary? If you don't pay, don't they send the collectors after you, take you to court, get a lien, etc? In short, isn't all this "burden shifting" nonsense a bunch of crap? It's not like hospitals just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, he didn't have medical insurance. I guess we'll never see any money from him." No, they go after the individual just like anyone who fails to pay for a product or service. Why should medical care be any different from any other product? The only reason we have group health insurance plans is because it was a way for businesses to provide compensation to employees in a way that wasn't taxable. Make the employee and employer contributions to health insurance taxable and then see what happens! Anyway, am I wrong here? Is this not how hospitals work?

37

they can say that your choice to be uninsured is strictly irrational, and they do not have to make allowances for your irrational decisions.

 

If I do not have the freedom to fuck up, I do not have freedom at all. It's really that simple.

 

I'd love to see a market for catastrophic coverage only. Unfortuantely, that market has been regulated out of existence in many states due to must cover requirements.

 

38 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

39 Like I said. Any law that forces a young person to stay at home with his parents is inherently evil.

40 tsrblke, you've got a point, about "a mandate too far" but the obvious answer any conservative would give is that ANY mandate would have a similar effect of crowding out logical choices in a market.

41 What do you mean? "Obummer and co." cannot just "Roll back" a law by their own authority. it takes an act of congress. as far as too much or at all -- look, I just want to win THIS case. Further, judges are not pamphleteers. They do not seek to lay down Major Principles. They endeavor to rule on the narrowest grounds possible. Posted by: ace at March 30, 2012 03:52 PM (nj1bB) ***** Actually they are appointed for life for a reason... So they can have the balls to say the individual mandate is flatly- Unconstitutional. When in the 220 history of the US has the Congress forced people to essentially engage in a contract--buy insurance-- which they will have to do for life simply because they were born in the US?

42 There's a line out the door at the 7-11 of people paying the stupid tax.

hehe...last week at the grocery store, someone in front of me at the checkout was talking loudly to his friend in the other line about how much gas was costing him.  He quoted a price per gallon that was one week out of date because the price at the station in front of the store was 6 cents higher than what he thought it was.  Anyhow, he was bitching about paying nearly $4/gallon to his friend, and when he collected his bags and started to leave, he stops at the lottery ticket kiosk to buy a scratchoff ticket.  This kiosk only sells the $20-$30 scratch off tickets.

I am no longer amazed at the retardedness of our country.

43

If this does not get overturned, then it will get overturned when the first regular citizen sues Obama because he's a denied a waiver.

 

Posted by: soothsayer at March 30, 2012 03:42 PM (jUytm)

 

Or when the first mob of unruly citizens show up on the White House's doorstep with pitchforks and torches.

44

I think the whole idea of this law is bogus.  Let me be free to decide if I want medical insurance, whether it's catastrophic or comprehensive, period.  If I don't want to get any insurance, I should be free to make that decision.  I should also be free to reap the consequences if something bad happens if I don't.

 

The idea of the government saying I have to buy anything is unconstitutional.  And don't throw that "car insurance" premise at me.  That has been thoroughly debunked.

45 I have been saying forever that health insurance is no longer insurance.  Its now just you hiring someone else to pay the bill that you never see.  Until we get back to it being real insurance, coving the big costly stuff that most likely wont happen to you, we are always going to have health care issues.

46 There is indeed a Religious Conscience exemption in the law. It applies to sects like the Amish who also do no take part in Social Security benefits. And Indians, of course, if they want.

47 The heart of liberty must include the right to define oneÂ’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of catastrophic medical insurance, and of the mystery of human life.

48 What this post gets at is the false choice/false dilemma that has characterized the lib's arguments from the beginning: "You don't like PPACA? So you want sick people to die?" A False Dilemma is a logical fallacy and ignores that there are other alternatives (like catastrophic coverage, which I personally prefer) that address the problem of the shared healthcare burden. I have a libtard Facebook friend, and when he responds to a link or status update with some stupidity, I just point out the logical fallacy in his reply (like shootin' fish in a barrel), and it shuts him it real quick like.

49 In short, isn't all this "burden shifting" nonsense a bunch of crap? ********* What "market" could the Libs not make this argument? What's the "limit" *if* ObamaCare is found to be Constitutional?

50 Ace, If the Commerce Clause is being correctly invoked, there is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt outlawing economically useful products such as catastrophic insurance. Stupid, but not unconstitutional. It's not the Supreme Court's job to protect us from stupid laws and twist the meaning of the Constitution to achieve this. And whether the Commerce Clause is being correctly invoked has nothing at all to do with whether the law in question is stupid. I think most people would agree that Congress does have the power to outlaw interstate catastrophic insurance policies even if that would be foolish. Under the bad precedent's of Wickard and Raich, most legal scholars would say it also has the right to outlaw intrastate catastrophic insurance policies as well because they affect interstate prices. (This is stupid, but that is the precedent.) As for liberty, what is good policy is also not relevant. It's just as liberty-reducing to take away my ability to buy crappy cars as it is to take away my ability to buy good cars.

51

>>>"hehe...last week at the grocery store, someone in front of me at the checkout was talking loudly to his friend in the other line about how much gas was costing him."

 

Usually those people have one of those $1.00 16-ounce bottles of water when they say that.

 

52 I think that after Barky's 'last election'.....he will have more 'flexibility' to keep granting those Obamacare Waivers for all his buddies.

53 OT, but Hotair reporting that California state colleges may start asking students if they are gay, lesbian, transexual, you name it, you'll do it, and so forth... Because, you know... they want to be sure they take in enough sexual deviants and all.

54 if you like your coverage you can keep your coverage....if you don't have coverage....we will dictate what kind of coverage you can have......

55 AndrewsDad, RIGHT ON.

56

Heatlh care for the masses. Thats why we need a global tax.

 

57 pull your head out of you're butt idiots here comes some information

if that fat guy kagan and those other dbags take away health

alot of kids will get sick and dying with no medicine

if you clowns don't not care about bears

you should at least care about childrens

#JusticeForClayton

58 The S.C took their vote this morning. I'm sure that Obama has already been told by the libs what the decision is and we should be able to tell by how the SCOAMF acts and spins.

59 I thought if we liked our coverage, we could keep our coverage.

Zero should be sued for bait-and-switch.  He lied to the people and to Congress to get the law passed.  But if a company outright lied in an ad, or a person outright lied to get someone else to sign a contract, how is this different?

Among other things, couldn't a Dem who lost their seat in 2010 sue The One for fraud?

Of course, this applies to about a zillion other things Barky has said and done.

Also regarding the waivers, I also don't understand why this was not part of the SCOTUS review.  Aren't they blatant unequal enforcement of the law?  And it would be easy to prove favoritism for Dem/Obama supporters.

 

60 Remember that bromide from Viet Nam - "We had to destroy the village to save it."

SG Verrilli just repackaged it - "In order to give you liberty, we took it away."

61

What do you mean? "Obummer and co." cannot just "Roll back" a law by their own authority. it takes an act of congress.
 
as far as too much or at all -- look, I just want to win THIS case. Further, judges are not pamphleteers. They do not seek to lay down Major Principles. They endeavor to rule on the narrowest grounds possible.
 

Posted by: ace at March 30, 2012 03:52 PM (nj1bB)

Fair enough point, I'm thinking too far down the road.  I'm not a lawyer! That argument works now (and works really well) so, hopefully it works towards striking down this law (YAY!). My comment was in terms of strategy after this case (assuming it goes in our favor.)  So the new Set point for the left is "Major Medical Mandate"

Now I'll put back on my "principles hat" and say "but then they just push through the same law swapping the current mandate for one mandating "Major Medical."  Is such a law OK with people?"  I guess we pick up that battle when we get there.  I suppose I'd like to have a good argument that doesn't require us to force back a few feet at a time.  Frankly I hope we never get there, if we do reform better (decoupling insurance from compensation, tort reform, etc.) we won't have to ask those questions.

62 We are already into the land of Nod where your insurance pays for everyday expenses like birth control pills or condoms as a right. I'm sure the idea that people would pay for non-catastrophic medical is unreal.


Remember, in the liberal mind, everything is or should be free. The only reason something isn't free is because bad guys are greedy.

63 When in the 220 history of the US has the Congress forced people to essentially engage in a contract--buy insurance-- which they will have to do for life simply because they were born in the US? ******* Let me add and that contract is with a private business. Ginsburg kept making analogies to Social Security --but-- Social Security is completely run by the government.

64 Usually those people have one of those $1.00 16-ounce bottles of water when they say that.

Posted by: Roy at March 30, 2012 04:01 PM (VndSC)

No, this guy was some redneck looking guy in a wife beater.

65 If I do not have the freedom to fuck up, I do not have freedom at all.

This needs to be written in letters as deep as a spear is long on the side of the Washington Monument.

66 47
Don't act stupidly Anthony.

67 dammmit

68 33 ~ well, if I play my cards right, it will be the start of major ululations here. Yeah, I'm easy that way.

69 That also leads to another very good argument against Obamacare.  The governments proposal says that there is only one delivery and financing mechanism for healthcare.  That locks down that method for eternity.  What if some genius comes up with a new way to deliver and pay for healthcare that users find efficient and satisfactory?  That new idea will never happen.  It's been outlawed and no one will be able to choose to adopt it.  Think it won't happen?  Who ever heard of walk in after hours clinics 20 years ago?

70 Remember the YouTube video where the Marine tore into whatever RAT scumbag Congresspieceofshit was trying to defend Obsamacare at a townhall, he said, "you said we could keep our own insurance. Well Thank You very much".

71 Silly wingnuts, we could easily afford Obamacare if we instituted a global tax.

72 Oh, BTW, Elena Kagan isn't exactly making herself look bright. Since we know she didn't have sex to get where she is, I'm assuming they had a LGBTQ slot to fill? Ugly and dumb.

73 If the Justices are taking a vote today but it will be months before they issue written opinions, how come there are no leaks? Are there ever leaks in the Court? Everyone else leaks info. Can we bribe a clerk?

74 good catch ***this is about the government taking away your ability to choose an economically sensible, historically useful product, Major Medical, and forces you instead to buy a very costly, dubiously useful policy which covers almost everything (and of course costs more than it would just be to buy each service with your own cash), then that seems to be a much easier question.** That is, the liberals are going to violate the constitution for THE CHILDREN based on their idiotic ideas on what is good for the children. I am glad that the lawyers were willing to partially at least snip this line of reasoning in the bud. There is no benefit for the children, as it were, because this law isn't about that because it's forcing us to buy bloated, expensive packages. And single payer medical systems suck. Since, they suck, they're bad for THE CHILDREN.(tm)

75 The more I think of it, I 'm sure some clerk has a thing for tranny hookers and blow.

76 While Ace deserves due credit for his reasoned and balanced argument, I implore you all to take a moment to steer straight into the crazy skid and head over to HA to read Naomi Wolf screech about Katy Perry's "Marine Propagana" video. It really has her in a huff.

77 And when you're young you can choose to go without HC for some time if you're willing to gamble on that. I did this in my 20s and took the difference as cash, simply because I never got sick. People should be free to take a gamble like that if they want to.

78 As for liberty, what is good policy is also not relevant. It's just as liberty-reducing to take away my ability to buy crappy cars as it is to take away my ability to buy good cars. Posted by: chris not rock at March 30, 2012 04:01 PM (dX5s2) ************* Correct. However, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to compel you to buy a car.

79 and really, there needs to be this argument because we need to prevent soft minded justices from creating a very special exception for a very special service because OBAMAcare isn't that thing.

80

I am predicting continued abuses of power with an 80% chance of dying cold and alone.

 

Hey, how about those Maple Leafs, huh? Boy, I tell ya...

81 This is what happened to me in MA. When I was 25 I punched the numbers and opted out of the unused company medical plans for catastrophic coverage, deciding to put the (substantial) monthly difference into growing my savings. Four years ago I was notified said policy would not be renewed as it was no longer in compliance in MA. Thanks, Mitt.

82

Does anyone trust Kagan to do anything...anything...without injecting her own liberal views into it?

 

Personally.....I've got an uneasy feeling about her being the one who is 'taking the notes' for the Justices' discussions  on  this  today.

83 I'm trying to think of a way to make Bohemian Rhapsody relevant to this discussion, but can't. Oh, and Monkey Gun!

84 >>And when you're young you can choose to go without HC for some time if you're willing to gamble on that.

Health INSURANCE, not health CARE.

If all you're going to need is the occasional Z-pack (which I still haven't been able to get my $12k gold-plated abortion-covering insurance to reimburse me for having to buy with my own money because they took three months to send me a card with my policy number, ratfucking scrunts) or a yearly "well-woman" (snark) exam, providers take cash.

Providers love cash.  My last doctor gave a discount for cash.

85 83 I'm trying to think of a way to make Bohemian Rhapsody relevant to this discussion, but can't. Oh, and Monkey Gun!

Posted by: Grant S at March 30, 2012 04:09 PM (dsCnE)

I'll be singing it (badly, just like that guy) on my way to the re-education camps.

86 Unless consumers have the choice of products, and a choice of price, there is no way of knowing what the economically-optimal product is.  Or what the optimal price is. 

Market processes yield economic information.  That's their primary function. 

No market = no economic information. 

I realize that your typical fucking Leftist-Statist smug libtard has no working knowledge of how to run a business, or how to design and market a product that people might actually want to buy at a a price that people want to pay, that's better and more attractive than what everyone else is offering, but market information is the reason we have nice things. 

Without market information, we're back to living in conditions that would make that 120 square-foot shed with the shit-bucket look like the Taj Mahal. 

They should let me argue to the SCOTUS.  I'll set them straight. 

87

Posted by: Grant S at March 30, 2012 03:56 PM (dsCnE)

 

It's more complicated than that.  Sometimes hospitals do just write off "bad debt." (usually it gets filed under charity care.)

Here's the basic truth, if someone racks up hundreds of thousands of dollars in care (say for cancer) and has a $40k/year job, there's a very very small chance you'll get that back (even if you could take 100% of their earnings, for 400k in care it'd take 10 years).

 

Plus figure some people who get really expensive care die before it's even completed in the first place.  AFAIK, medical bills are unsecured credit so those guys are going to be nearly last in line to get paid (down there with credit card companies and well below Mortgages, car loans, etc.)

 

Now my job did release a notice a few years go that most their insurance has ever paid out was I think around 1.7 million over the life of a particular policy (they were justifying a new $5 million life time cap that I had no problem with.) If that helps put in context what a "large" bill might be.

88 <<However, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to compel you to buy a car.>>

Well the govt made me buy a bunch of cars in cash for clunkers.

/ and No I'm not disagreeing with your point just CFC still pisses me off.

89 Ties back to Kennedy's comment about creating commerce. Obamacare also  actually destroys commerce to the extent it defines what can and cannot be sold in the market, eliminates insurance products that many may want to buy, and compels them to buy a insurance products covering things they do not need -- in some cases will never need -- or want.

90

However, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to compel you to buy a car.

 

If ObamaCare is upheld under the Commerce Clause, there is no reason why the Feds can't compel me to buy a car.  Or a gun.  That's the one I throw out at the Left.  If their version of the power of government wins, then I will start a campaign mandating that all US adults purchase a gun. 

91 However, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to compel you to buy a car.

Yet.

92

#22 You don't get it, the wiping out of Major Medical or HDHP's is a feature, not a bug of Obamacare.  They want to force young people to buy Cadillac policies, so they have to throw in things young people want, like "free" birth control and morning-after pills.  They claim that the cross-subsidization doesn't work unless young people have to pay for a shit-ton more insurance than they need.

 

CJ Roberts caught this issue as well in his questioning, and seemed right pissed that the government had the nerve to argue for forcing people to buy insurance but then allowing them to buy only ONE flavor of insurance.  That whole sequence of questions from him was brilliant.  It made Obamacare look like something only the USSR could have concocted.

The other thing that happened with this whole line of argument that horrified the Left was that it totally exploded their myth of the poor uninsured middle-aged working couple, who live every day terrified of getting a hangnail because they can't afford insurance and their employers don't offer it.  It exploded their myth that millions of these people are out there and they are running to the hospitals and racking up billions of dollars in medical bills that nobody is paying for.  That's really a load of crap.  The vast majority of uninsured people are either illegal aliens or people undeer the age of 30 who don't need health insurance, or at least don't need comprehensive insurance, and don't ever use much health care.

93 72 Oh, BTW, Elena Kagan isn't exactly making herself look bright. Since we know she didn't have sex to get where she is, I'm assuming they had a LGBTQ slot to fill? Ugly and dumb. Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 04:04 PM (CMM9V) Too bad that conflict of interest recusal effort never went anywhere.

94 Kagan is terrifying and should have recused herself. Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg is mostly dead--that's another reason to get rid of President Algae. But Kagan, not only is she corrupt, she's evil, liberal and ugly. It's like he appointed fat Gollum to the bench.

95 @ 84 - My local hospital gives 30% off of your out-of-pocket expenses if you pre-register with a credit card.

96 Providers love cash. My last doctor gave a discount for cash.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 30, 2012 04:09 PM (ZKzrr)

The list prices are bogus, to begin with.  Doctors and hospitals have to inflate the list prices because government programs only pay X% for procedure Y, so they make the adjustment in the list price.  This is truly a case of raising the price 100% for Medicare and then giving an individual a 30% discount.

97

See this is a great argument that only you seem to be making. I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the means, i'm comfortable but I choose to forego purchasing health insurance because I don't want the added cost. I don't go to the doctor everytime I get the sniffles hell I haven't seen a general physician in probably 10 years. I'm healthy, aside from having muscular dystrophy but that doesn't cause health problems for me aside from difficulty walking, so why should I have to purchase a product I won't use and that will harm my well-being by draining my bank account?

 

However, I would absolutely buy major medical because I do know that if something unforseen happens and I need major health care it will be taken are of. It would be economical and it would only cover what I need it to cover. Why is that something bad?

98 then I will start a campaign mandating that all US adults purchase a gun.

Not just any gun.  A big gun!

99 My local hospital gives 30% off of your out-of-pocket expenses if you pre-register witha credit card.

Posted by: Grant S at March 30, 2012 04:11 PM (dsCnE)

Damn!  I'm good.

100 It's like he appointed fat Gollum to the bench. Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 04:11 PM (CMM9V) Lol too good

101 However, I would absolutely buy major medical because I do know that if something unforseen happens and I need major health care it will be taken are of. It would be economical and it would only cover whatI need it to cover. Why is that something bad?

Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at March 30, 2012 04:11 PM (YhZFe)

 

Because the liberals want full coverage for all the illegal aliens who use the ER as their primary doctor's office. 

102 82 Does anyone trust Kagan to do anything...anything...without injecting her own liberal views into it? Personally.....I've got an uneasy feeling about her being the one who is 'taking the notes' for the Justices' discussions on this today. Posted by: wheatie at March 30, 2012 04:08 PM (dEMjC) *********** Well-she got handed her hat after one particular colloquy entre Clement and Scalia-it's about my favorite part. Let me go fetch it! Here: ****************** MR. CLEMENT: — what I was going to say,Justice Scalia, which is I think the question for this Court is — we all recognize thereÂ’s legislative inertia. And then the question is whatÂ’s the best result in light of that reality? JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Are you suggesting that we should take on more power to the Court? MR. CLEMENT: No, I -­square that reality with the proposition that what weÂ’re looking for here is what would this Congress have intended. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Because Congress would choose to take one path rather than another. ThatÂ’s sort of taking onto the Court more power than one, I think, would want. MR. CLEMENT: And I agree. WeÂ’re simply asking this Court to take on, straight on, the idea of the basic remedial inquiry into severability which looks to the intent of the Congress -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, I wanted to ask you about that. Why do we look to the – are you sure we look to the intent of the Congress? I thought that, you know, sometimes Congress says that these provisions will — all the provisions of this Act will be severable. We ignore that when the Act really wonÂ’t work, when the remaining provisions just wonÂ’t work. Now, how can you– MR. CLEMENT: Well, two responses, Justice Scalia: We can look at this CourtÂ’s cases on severability, and they all formulate the test a little bit differently. JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, they sure do. MR. CLEMENT: But every one of them talks about congressional intent. But hereÂ’s the other answer– JUSTICE SCALIA: ThatÂ’s true, but is it right? MR. CLEMENT: It is right. And hereÂ’s how I would answer your question, which is, when Congress includes a severability clause, itÂ’s addressing the issue in the abstract. It doesnÂ’t say, no matter which provisions you strike down, we absolutely, positively want whatÂ’s left. JUSTICE SCALIA: All right. The consequence of your proposition, would Congress have enacted it without this provision, okay, thatÂ’s the consequence. That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the — whatÂ’s it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay? (Laughter.) JUSTICE SCALIA: When we strike that down, itÂ’s clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That canÂ’t be right. MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think it can be, which is the basic proposition, that itÂ’s congressional intent that governs. Now everybody on this Court has a slightly different way of divining legislative intent. And I would suggest the one common ground among every member of this Court, as I understand it, is you start with the text. Everybody can agree with that. JUSTICE KAGAN: So Mr. Clement, letÂ’s start with the text. And you suggest, and I think that there is — this is right, that there is a textual basis for saying that the guarantee issue and the community rating provisions are tied to the mandate. And you said — you pointed to where that was in the findings. Is there a textual basis for anything else, because IÂ’ve been unable to find one. It seems to me that if you look at the text, the sharp dividing line is between guarantee issue, community ratings, on the one hand, everything else on the other. MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Kagan I would be delighted to take you through my view of the text and why there are other things that have to fall. The first place I would ask you to look is finding J, which is on the same page 43A. And as I read that, thatÂ’s a finding that the individual mandate is essential to the operation of the exchanges. But there are other links between guaranteed issue and community rating and the exchanges. And there I think itÂ’s just the way that the exchanges are supposed to work, and the text makes this clear, is they are supposed to provide a market where people can compare community rated insurance. ThatÂ’s what makes the exchanges function.

103 The S.C took their vote this morning. I'm sure that Obama has already been told by the libs what the decision is and we should be able to tell by how the SCOAMF acts and spins.

My thoughts exactly.  And, won't clerks and others know pretty soon too, expanding the potential leakers beyond the big nine?  They'll be given writing assignments soon, right?


One other thing has always bothered me about O-care which I haven't seen voiced.  I have a right to spend my money the way I want.  Nobody, including (and especially) the gov't, has a right to set my financial priorities.  Not only does this mean they can't mandate I buy insurance, but even if somehow that slipped through, who are they to determine what I can or can't afford (ie, who qualifies for subsidies and who doesn't)?  Everyone has different priorities, different levels of other debt, different levels of other ongoing expenses, and different ideas about how much to spend vs save. 

104 @ 87 - Ok, thanks. But still, that itself could be changed. If debt recovery is a significant problem maybe that's where we should be legislating.

105 Actually there has never been a leak.

106 BTW, that article in the NYT seems to me a dead giveaway that the liberals know they have lost this case.  They know Kennedy isn't going to support this POS, but they want to call of the liberal lynch mob and butter him up for later. They want him when the really big case comes, the one for which Elena Kagan was put on the Court.....gay marriage. 

107

Would someone please say this......

1) Health Care

2) Health Insurance

Two different things !

108 Here are the Senate Republicans who voted for Obama's two chariot-horses [cut out the spaces, there are no ampersands here]:

www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 2010/07/07/us/politics/ 20100707-kagan-vote-tracker.html

109

The One thing I'd bring up, that no one did...

 

If this is Justified under the 'regulation of INTERSTATE Commerce', how can it then be ILLEGAL to buy Health insurance across State Lines?

 

Congress specificly made Insurance NOT INTERSTATE...

 

How can even the Kagan (wait, wasn't that a bad guy in one of the Highlander movies?) explain that little Jem away?

110 Would someone please say this......
1) Health Care
2) Health Insurance
Two different things !

Posted by: RUReadingthis at March 30, 2012 04:17 PM (V92KK)

Scalia did during oral arguments, but I only caught him mention it in passing, once.

111 88 <> Well the govt made me buy a bunch of cars in cash for clunkers. / and No I'm not disagreeing with your point just CFC still pisses me off. Posted by: Buzzsaw at March 30, 2012 04:10 PM (tf9Ne) *************** I hear ya. In that case they gave you an incentive to participate in the market. You still had a choice not to participate. ObamaCare by comparison--penalizes an inaction--the choice to not participate in the health care insurance market.

112 105 Actually there has never been a leak.

 

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 04:17 PM (CMM9V)

 

By definition, its not a leak if you turn the dam spigot on...

113 @ 99  Ha! This eerie coincidence leads me to believe that things are not quite as wonderful as I percieved them to be. But I'm not on Medicare, so maybe...

114

Ace,

I don't think they're referring to "Major Medical" ... Major Medical is meant to go ontop of your existing health insurance, and is meant to extend your health insurance beyond the usual maximums.

Catastrophic insurance is different. It REPLACES your existing health insurance. Basically catastrophic insurance is usually cheaper than normal health insurance and is meant ONLY for major medical emergencies. So it has an incredibly high deductible (generally 5K-10K) but once you hit that deductible, it has no maximum.

The reason leftists hate catastrophic insurance is because it's the ultimate Big Government Insurance deal killer. For young healthy people who rarely visit the doctor it keeps their premiums very low (which doesn't allow for wealth transfer) but also covers them in the event the "unthinkable" happens (which they've clearly thought about, which makes them responsible). So because of these two points - lack of wealth transfer, personal responsibility - the left absolutely hate it.

Also, most catastrophic insurance utilizes HSAs, which allows the young people to pay for medical things with untaxed money.

The more I think about it, the more I can see why the left absolutely hate it. Also they call it "cheating" haha. Because the "healthy young" don't have to "pay into the system" haha. As though Insurance companies would offer a product that bankrupted them. Nope, it just means that people who want to pay for comprehensive coverage have to pay more for their own insurance.

115 Ace, you beauty! Carvin's is an excellent argument, and it goes directly to the harm Obamacare does to citizens. It is, as you noted, much graver than being forced to act in some way, or being denied one more small piece of our ever-dwindling freedom.

116 Romeo13, while the purchase of insurance isn't across state lines, the provision of actual health care often is. That's the "interstate" commerce.

And I raised this question elsewhere, isn't mandating I spend the fruits of my labor on a private third party indentured servitude to that company?

117 Oh, and thanks, Utah Republicans! for inflicting Hatch on us for another 6 years.

118

If I could design my "ideal" insurance policy (removed from employer based insurance) it would basically have a high (5-10K) annual deductable with a life time out of pocket maximum (I'd set that at about $50k-100k, I might consider as low as 20K kicking in if you hit the deductable 3 years in a row even though I know it would be higher cost for various reasons.) I'd probably take a 2-3million lifetime cap on it as well.

My biggest concern would be to hedge against a resetting deductable for a long term catestrophic problem (e.g. cancer) whereby I'm forking over the deductable each year for several years (which would cause me to run into the hole pretty quickly and possibly place my family at risk.)

Of course I'd pay for this, I wonder what the numbers on this would be actually?  Since the likelyhood of it paying out in any given year is small I'd imagine it'd be fairly inexpensive. (FWIW, it's modeled slightly after term life insurance.) I'd guess in the long run I'd save money relative to the $120/month my wife pays for her (solo) insurance now (I get mine covered entirely per the employer, but that's only because I'm on student insurance.)

119 Providers love cash. My last doctor gave a discount for cash.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 30, 2012 04:09 PM (ZKzrr)

 

-----------------------------------

 

Providers love cash and will work with you if you can't afford a single payment.  Cash lowers their administrative costs exponentially.

120 Congress specificly made Insurance NOT INTERSTATE...

How can even the Kagan (wait, wasn't that a bad guy in one of the Highlander movies?) explain that little Jem away?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 30, 2012 04:19 PM (lZBBB)

Congress is just claiming that health care is interstate (since you might get sick while you're across state lines) and because of that they can do anything they want to the health insurance market, even though that remains intra-state, even with the crappy, disgusting, stupid, booby-trapped  exchanges.

How this sort of reasoning makes it out of the sandbox and into the real world ... a total and unmitigated lack of national self-respect.

121 >>Doctors and hospitals have to inflate the list prices because government programs

Yeah, I'm aware. My father got out of private family practice when he realized he didn't have enough patients who weren't on Medicare or Medicaid (or just refusing to pay his bills, because medical care should be free, just like the money the government gives them to put land out of crop production) to keep the office lights on.

I learned to hate the government at a young age. Not sure how my siblings missed the lesson.

122 hole families used to sleep together in the same bed with no waste.....not even a leak..... jose canseco

123 Lindsey Graham. Must. Go.

124

102.....Heh. Yep, tasker.....and that thing about "Congressional intent" gets pummeled by the fact that some congressmen removed the severability clause on purpose.

 

It was in there....in earlier drafts. Then they took it out. ....So if they want to talk about 'congressional intent', then the intent was that the whole damn thing would have to rise or fall in it's entireity.

125 116 Romeo13, while the purchase of insurance isn't across state lines, the provision of actual health care often is. That's the "interstate" commerce.

And I raised this question elsewhere, isn't mandating I spend the fruits of my labor on a private third party indentured servitude to that company?
 

Posted by: xbradtc at March 30, 2012 04:20 PM (yVIqn)

 

But this is not a Law about HealthCARE... its about Health INSURANCE.

126 107 Would someone please say this...... 1) Health Care 2) Health Insurance Two different things ! Posted by: RUReadingthis at March 30, 2012 04:17 PM (V92KK) ********** I think the Liberals get around that by saying that most people pay for health care with health care insurance. It's annoying--no one during arguments mentioned that people can pay cash. Also --if you want to talk about options off the table--I think ObamaCare would make it illegal for people to self-insure.

127 Fuck, you can hit $10,000 with a broken ankle in need of a screw. Wait, let me rephrase that.....

128 It was in there....in earlier drafts. Then they took it out. ....So if they want to talk about 'congressional intent', then the intent was that the whole damn thing would have to rise or fall in it's entireity. Posted by: wheatie at March 30, 2012 04:22 PM (dEMjC) ******** I think I saw that argument in the State's brief.

129 They are also getting rid of minor medical policies that cost very little, and cover smallish costs and doctors visits. My husband's company has this sort of policy. We add on major medical on the private marketing, and still come in way under what a comprehensive family plan w/maternity care would cost. Now we don't have that option.

130 So, Ace, what you describe re:framing is a lofty, intellectual debating society where the most glib spinmeister gets the trophy for his clever rhetorical flourishes, rather than an actual logical process that cuts through bullshit and looks at things in the cold light of day. I think that's the crux of the deserved contempt which so many people have toward government, the law, and the 'justice' system.

131 46 There is indeed a Religious Conscience exemption in the law. It applies to sects like the Amish who also do no take part in Social Security benefits. And Indians, of course, if they want. Posted by: soothsayer at March 30, 2012 03:58 PM (jUytm) KISS ME! I'M AMISH! Oy gevalt. Will Obamacare cover foreskin reattachment?

132 oh so hatch survived?

133 Shit tasker, Obama doesn't even want people to self contracept! Coitus interruptus is practically a misdemeanor. You have a RIGHT to free boutique pills!!

134

Another way you can look at it is by comparing it to Auto Insurance. I know that health insurance is nothing like auto insurance but it is an argument liberals love to make so bear with me.

 

No one forces me to buy a fancy auto insurance package that has a low deductible and covers things like a cracked windshield. No, if you drive you are only required to have liability insurance. If i'm only required to have liability insurance for my car why can't I have the liability insurance of the health care world?

135

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 30, 2012 04:21 PM (X3lox)

 

Actualy, even health CARE is not Interstate, as each STATE has its own Licenseing for Doctors and Nurses... its a strictly STATE run institution...

136

IÂ’m not going to take any position until I hear what Toure has to say.

137 But this is not a Law about HealthCARE... its about Health INSURANCE.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 30, 2012 04:23 PM (lZBBB)

--

The gov'ts argument against that is that since Health Insurance isn't purchased for its own sake it's really the health care market.

Yeah, I know...but that's their argument

138 #109 The government's argument is that every person is going to be in the health care market at some point in their lives, but they don't know when or for how much.  If they don't buy health insurance and they end up consuming a lot of health care that they can't pay for, the rest of us end up paying for that health care.  So we, the rest of us, acting through the government, have a right to make those people buy health insurance so that we don't end up paying for their health care.  They posit that people who do not buy insurance are therefore affecting the interstate market for health care, because their inactions raise costs for the rest of us.

139 One argument that never got explored to my satisfaction is the claim of "special status" of the medical care market is manufactured by government regulation that does not allow medical care to act as a normal market.

The plainest argument is that the medical market is far from free, and the crisis in the market is caused by artificial fetters of law. Can the government create a market crisis in any "need" market, food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care, and then once through law the crisis comes to be, they can now leverage that crisis to control and compel when and how any citizen will enter into that need market, and thereafter when compelled to interact with a market, further compel transaction within that market.

If you let them do it once, they will do it for every market that matches the mold. If the court doesn't strike the mandate then we cease to be a free society.

140 If i'm only required to have liability insurance for my car why can't I have the liability insurance of the health care world?

Wait.  It's okay to be compelled to buy insurance because you make other people sick?

141

Posted by: Grant S at March 30, 2012 04:16 PM (dsCnE)

 

Eh, there are certain realities you simply can't legislate around.  Your rack up care in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, you're chances of living long enough to repay it go down significantly (especially considering that you've probably been taking FMLA time for part of that so your income is down as well.) Factor in bankrupcy, etc. (we'd have to fundamentally change those laws to I imagine)

I suppose one option would be to have the debt get more easily passed on to familes, but this just seems strange (and contrary to how we handle debt in this country.

Interesting point though, Catholic Moral theory for the longest time had a component where you had to consider the total effect of healthcare on your family (and the "community" but they used the term much narrower than it would be understood today, so don't consider that.)  If care required you to effectively bankrupt your family you were not under obligation to use it (and per some theories, you shouldn't use it.)  We've lost that entirely (See: Medicare)

142 >>Fuck, you can hit $10,000 with a broken ankle in need of a screw.

The cost would probably come down if it wasn't jacked-up to make up for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements--no more $7 for a dose of ibuprofen.

And most people don't need that sort of thing every year. 

143

With all this debate, I think most of us are still missing the main point of Ocare.  This really isn't about health.  It's about power.  The power for government to capriciously give liberty to those they wish, or the power to take freedom away.  It's purpose is the same as AGW.  It's really as simple as that.

144

Actually, this blog post is paralysis by overanalysis.  Carvin made a decent point, but it's not as if he turned water into wine. 

Kennedy's entire premise is wrong.  Carvin should have been prepared for that, but he wasn't. 

The ratings for the premiums for EPLI insurance, for example, would substantially be impacted if every small business purchased EPL coverage instead of self insuring against labor and employment claims.  Very few small businesses, however, purchase that form of insurance.  It's just not considered essential to business operations.  The ratings for payment and performance surety bonds substantially would be impacted if every small contractor on every small contstruction job purchased surety bond coverage.  But that's not how the small construction industry actually works.  There are plenty of unbonded contractors who perform work.  The ratings for auto insurance rates in New York State, for example, substantially would be impacted if all adult Manhattanites entered the market (many of whom have crystal clear driving records, because they don't drive), but still several hundred thousand people who live in Manhattan never will enter the auto insurance market.  Similar dynamics are at work in other densely-populated urban metropolises, e.g., Boston, Philly, Chicago, San Francisco.  Lots of people out there don't own cars and don't drive.   

The best argument against Obamacare also is the simplest argument and the one that Clement and Carvin did make over and over again:  That the Constitution does not give Congress the power to create commerce in order to regulate it.  To allow that power would be unprecedented in history and by definition there would be no limiting principle.

145 When in the 220 history of the US has the Congress forced people to essentially engage in a contract--buy insurance-- which they will have to do for life simply because they were born in the US?


----

The Fugitive Slave Act.

146 >>The gov'ts argument against that is that since Health Insurance isn't purchased for its own sake it's really the health care market.

...the health insurance they mandate does not guarantee actual care will be received.

147

If this does pass the Supremes this time...

 

I will start Church and State case as soon as I have to pay anything on this crappy system.  You cannot favor One Religion over Another in the Law... its blatantly UnConstitutional.

148 Actualy, even health CARE is not Interstate, as each STATE has its own Licenseing for Doctors and Nurses... its a strictly STATE run institution...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 30, 2012 04:25 PM (lZBBB)

"You cannot win an argument just by being right." -- Borther Barry in Four Lions

Sadly, the accepted logic in American law, these days, seems to be that if any atom crosses state lines, then all objects and systems that come within 50 feet of that out-of-state atom are now engaging in interstate commerce and anything they do that day can be regulated by Congress.

It's offensive, but after perverting our law to accommodate Affirmative Action and the like, this is how things had to go.

149 How about this argument?

The Govt. is largely responsible for the problem of the uninsured with their litany of mandates on insurance plans that price out the only economic options for the young and healthy.  Its like buying home owners insurance priced for a 500k home for your 700 sq. foot apartment.  Congress could easily fix the problem by reforming existing law to open up a market for emergency healthcare.  I'm talking about a plan that only kicks in in the event annual costs rise above 20k.

150 That the Constitution does not give Congress the power to create commerce in order to regulate it. To allow that power would be unprecedented in history and by definition there would be no limiting principle. Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at March 30, 2012 04:28 PM (f8XyF) ******************* Cha-ching!

151 From what I've read, Hatch won most of the delegates to the convention, so he's the presumed winner of the primary.

152 >>>If they don't buy health insurance and they end up consuming a lot of health care that they can't pay for, the rest of us end up paying for that health care.

That situation is created by government control of the market, specifically in whom must be given care and why, and therefore should not be allowed as argument for further expanse of government power.

153 Sadly, the accepted logic in American law, these days, seems to be that if any atom crosses state lines, then all objects and systems that come within 50 feet of that out-of-state atom are now engaging in interstate commerce and anything they do that day can be regulated by Congress.

Your theory flops because atoms don't have positions.

Bazinga.

154

>>Fuck, you can hit $10,000 with a broken ankle in need of a screw.

The cost would probably come down if it wasn't jacked-up to make up for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements--no more $7 for a dose of ibuprofen.

And most people don't need that sort of thing every year.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 30, 2012 04:27 PM (ZKzrr)

This times 1000X tack on the expensive (and often unneeded) machines that go "Boop!" (Montey Python) bought with cost shifting and that's where the problem relies.

Frankly you can't trust much with regards to cost in healthcare these days.  Your insurance EOB get's close to what you should be paying (if not for the wierd cost shifting.) but also people may pass on unneeded treatments if they had to pay for them themselves (MRI usage would go down, I'd bet there'd be fewer ankle screws, etc.)

155 I just bought health “insurance” in California last night for my girlfriend. It’s a pain and I’m paying more than I’d like for more things than I’d like. But, at least in California, there appears to be literally no expectation or even acceptance of paying out of pocket. We went to the emergency room yesterday (which fortunately turned out to be a false alarm, but did finally convince her to let me pay for health insurance until her income improves). They were very nice, and we met some great people who did a great job. But the finances person, who was also very nice, would not tell us how much it was going to cost. “A lot of money” was all I could get out of them. Since she didn’t have insurance, the only option according to the hospital was calling some city (or county, I don’t remember) medical insurance for uninsureds. We were never even presented with a list of the services she received let alone what they cost—nothing even remotely resembling a bill or a discussion of costs beforehand. It simply did not register to them that payments can come from anything other than insurance. If it can’t come from insurance, it needs to come from fake government insurance. Maybe if I’d made a scene they would have shown us a bill. I didn’t argue it with them. The financial person comes before the medical services are completed, and I didn’t want to get on their bad side, and besides, except for that disconnect everyone was nice.

156 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

157

59 I thought if we liked our coverage, we could keep our coverage.
----

Citizen: I like my self insuring coverage

Obama: Fuck You pay me

 

158

#133 And NO auto insurance policy pays for your tuneups, your oil changes and oil, your state inspections, your antifreeze, and alk the other routine costs of drving a car.  You can also choose to cover collision damage or not, and that coveraged is process based on your chosen deductible and the age and value of your car. 

 

Obamacare tells us we all now have to pay the same for our insurance as the promiscuous homosexual who is likely to bet AIDS, the 25-year-old woman who may have 1 or 20 babies (or abortions), the chain smoker who is likely to get lung cancer or heart disease, the fatass who si likely to have an MI or get diabetes, etc.   

 

This is not insurance anymore.  It is simply a socialized national health care financing system run through private insurance companies, so the Democrats don't have to call our premiums taxes.  What galls me the most is that if I am a healthy young person this premium I will have to pay is essentially a tax, but because it is paid to a private company and not the government, I have no say in how much that tax is or how my dollars are spent.

159 Your theory flops because atoms don't have positions.

Bazinga.

Posted by: Schrodinger and his Cat at March 30, 2012 04:32 PM (QKKT0)

Sure they do, just not known momentum, too.  But you do bring up the killer point:

Quantum Entanglement definitely proves that all action by anything is interstate commerce.  I made it so jut by traveling to all fifty states and entangling everyone and everything together in one quantum system.  Federalism is pretty easy to kill when quantum physics comes into play ...

Thanks, cat ... if you're still alive.

160 >>>Your theory flops because atoms don't have positions.
Bazinga.
Schrodinger and his Cat


Atoms do have positions. Sub atomic particles do not.

161 Atoms do have positions. Sub atomic particles do not.

 

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 30, 2012 04:38 PM (0q2P7)

 

Its all relative.... maybe...

162 Even Romney can with the election by repeatedly showing Pelosi with the giant gavel, then cutting to 10 seconds of Clement's argument.

163 No, if you drive you are only required to have liability insurance.

Correction: you have to show "proof of ability to pay."  You don't have to have any insurance at all, as long as you're well-enough off to pay for the damage you do to someone else's car and/or property.

164

Wait. It's okay to be compelled to buy insurance because you make other people sick?

 

That's not at all what I was saying, I was merely laboring to make a comparison (not a good one mind you) between health insurance and auto insurance because it's what liberals try to do. Major medical and liability insurance both only cover certain things - major medical costs and damage to anothers vehicle/property. People buy each for both practical and economical reasons. In my case I would buy major medical because I generally don't go to the physician but still would want major health procedures covered while people buy liability insurance because it is cheaper than full coverage but still covers major costs they couldn't pay on their own.

165 HELLO! My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!

It is Friday and I just felt like saying this. Somehow it fits with Obamacare in the SCOTUS sword fight.

166 Again.   Ocare is not about health.  It's about government controlling absolutely  EVERYTHING in your life.  They know how you should behave, don't you see.

167 This thread is comforting.  There are so many ways Obamacare is unconstitutional it is hard to believe even the liberal justices will be able to overcome all of the arguments persuasively enough to win a 5th vote for their side. But I won't breathe a sigh of relief until the decisions are announced. 

168
I'm tihnking Barry has no fucking clue, really, about a whole lot of shit.

Insurance being one of them.

Affirmative Action will do that to ya.

169 Again. Ocare is not about health. It's about government controlling absolutely EVERYTHING in your life. They know how you should behave, don't you see.

This should be repeated.
Incessantly.

170 Atoms do have positions. Sub atomic particles do not.

Wrong.  My cat could not be in a superposition state if the rule only applied to subatomic particles.  The whole point of the Schrodingers cat thought experiment was to show that everything was subject to the same physics as subatomic particles.

171 Everything has position and everything has momentum.  Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle only says that you can only observe the value of one of those measures at a time.

Of course, deep down, quantum physics says that there are no physical laws of movement and no such thing as "movement" ... but that's a whole other story.

172 Even if it's overturned--which, we'll see---President Panther may just FORCE it somehow.

173 The CVSs here have started keeping a nurse practitioner in the back who will see you and treat you or refer you to a doctor. Why can't we have a system like that set up for the illegals? Why do they have to get ER care? Why haven't the ERs installed a branch clinic where the triage nurses send those in need of not much? Why do we keep the system that provides too much expensive care for minor illnesses?

174

This is the thing I have not understood from the beginning. I don't use auto insurance to fix my car, why should I use health insurance for regular medical access? It should be called medical maintance or something. Health insurance should be just that, for major unforseen health issues.

175 73 If the Justices are taking a vote today but it will be months before they issue written opinions, how come there are no leaks? Are there ever leaks in the Court? Everyone else leaks info. Can we bribe a clerk?   ---   I'm so gonna score on Intrade

176 Lately I've just been replying this this kinda stuff like: "So? It's the state making me more of a serf. Screw that." It's a lot more effective.

177

I think this is the way it used to be before managed care (HMO's).  I remember my first job, my deductible was like $200 for each service, so it forced me to pay for the little things (at that time, you could get an office visit for less than half of that), and saved insurance just for the major things.  And, I think that's what kept costs down, too.

Even with my currrent plan, I chose an 80/20 plan, where my insurance pays 80% and I pay 20% for each service, so I've got some skin in the game, so to speak.  It's a shame that, with Obamacare, I'm going to have to give that up and go with some kind of managed care option, which is going to have a higher premium (where I work, the insurance premiums for those in HMO plans, are almost twice as high as my plan). 

178 The whole point of the Schrodingers cat thought experiment was to show that everything was subject to the same physics as subatomic particles.

The whole point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that theoretical scientists can be just silly and nonsensical as "philosophers."

Or, as it was once put: "If a couple of old guys asked about trees falling in the woods, and no one was around, would anyone care?"

179 I'd love to read all that, Ace, but I can't get motivated. Ever have one of those days? I don't know what to do.

Eat a Snickers bar.

180 Why has no one asked him if he's read the bill? If he says, 'yes,' just call him a liar and move on. Remember the story he told about wandering the halls of the white house, finding a library and reading a beautiful piece of Lincoln's wisdom? That quote turned out to be a commonly mistakes passage, and thus the whole story was bullshit. Just call him on it already.

181 Stephen Price Blair: I'm thinking because it takes time to do all the charges and have whom ever double check it. Still, making you sign up for some uninsured program is a bit over the top.

182 Wait, let me rephrase that.....

This made me realize that there was no new Archer episode this week. Now I'm a little sadder.

183 It's true. The reason they picked healthcare to communize first was for the control.

"Oh, Mister Moron, I see that you have been writing naughty things about Dear Leader...well, well and you wanted your daughter to have that ovarian cyst surgery. Tsk Tsk. Well it looks like she's pretty far down on the waiting list. Hope she can stand the pain."

184 The whole point of the Schrodingers cat thought experiment was to show that everything was subject to the same physics as subatomic particles.


De Broglie took care of that in cold, hard math.

185 #167 Actually, they want ALL OF US to end up becoming fascists who nose into everyone else's health.  If we all end up paying the same price for this "insurance", we're all going to be a lot more concerned about the people whose health and lifestyles make our costs go up, aren't we?  We'll all start agitating to close the McDonald's down the street from the school, we'll go up to that kid on the playground and take the candy bar away from her and yell at her mother for giving it to her, we'll snipe at the coworkers who are 40 lbs. overweight, we'll complain to the 7/11 about all the crap they sell at the checkout counter.  This is what they want.  It won't be "the government" telling us what to do, it will be our own neighbors, coworkers, friends, and even total strangers who will do it.  Think about that.  Do you want to live in that country?

186 It's about government controlling
absolutely EVERYTHING in your life.

O-care is an intrusion with literal life and death ramifications.  Pretty sure I read somewhere that we have a right to life, and liberty. 

Wonder if any of the briefs address death panels aka rationing?

187
A libtard told me "You have to buy auto insurance to drive, so why not health care?"
Well I do buy that, but in a risk pool that is the lowest nationwide. If you drink and have a wreck you are not covered.
With O'Care I have to help pay for everyones bad habits and I don't want to subsidize people's bad habits so put me in with the teetotalers, non-smoking and no risky hobbies and I'm ok. But what they want for two sixty year old people is more than I spend on groceries, autos and homeowners.

188  Even if it's overturned--which, we'll see---President Panther may just FORCE it somehow.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 30, 2012 04:42 PM (vpe0k)

 

--------------------------------------

 

He's already proven that he'll disregard decisions ruled by the fed judiciary.  Gulf oil drilling, anyone.  He and Harry Reid will just deem it to be the law.

189 We tried their way and it doesn't work.

190 Or, as it was once put: "If a couple of old guys asked about trees falling in the woods, and no one was around, would anyone care?"

 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 04:44 PM (8y9MW)

 

Or, if a Man speaks in the Forest, and there is no Woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

191 >>>I'd love to read all that, Ace, but I can't get motivated. Ever have one of those days? I don't know what to do. Ever since the time change, I have trouble getting out of bed, am getting late starts, and I can't believe it's afternoon already.

192 He and Harry Reid will just deem it to be the law.

If he does that, either he gets impeached, or the nation is done.  States like TX and OK won't just sit around and let him ignore the Supreme Court on that one, they'll force the issue somehow.

If he tries to push that crap, things will get real hot, real quick.

193 Not seeing this one Ace.   Looks like a policy argument pure and simple.  As for liberty, congress has limited market choices for many decades.   That ship has sailed. 

194 I like the "Obama's a little bitch" argument for overturning Obamacare.

195 Again. Ocare is not about health. It's about government controlling
absolutely EVERYTHING in your life. They know how you should behave,
don't you see.

Actually, that's what the public schools were for.

As Planck said, science proceeds one funeral at a time.  Same thing with politics. 

The vast majority of people get these insane governmental ideas implanted in them by an army of government-workers, nominally called "teachers." 

We need to wrest control of the schools back, then wait for the current crop of Leftards to die off. 

196 Posted by: Romeo13 at March 30, 2012 04:19 PM (lZBBB)


Glad to see someone else has puzzled over the interstate/intrastate conundrum.  In fact, I always thought it stupid for the Rrepubs (BIRM) to say we could reduce the cost by allowing health insurance purchases across state lines which would guarantee that it WAS interstate commerce.


There are a great many oddities in this abortion of a bill that all seem soviet in nature.  One can only hope Kennedy is sane for the next few months.

197 The whole point of the Schrodingers cat thought experiment was to show
that everything was subject to the same physics as subatomic particles.


De Broglie took care of that in cold, hard math.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 30, 2012 04:46 PM (X3lox)

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Yeah, but I like Schrodinger's cat.   While it was in the box, it didn't beg for treats.

198

How can Obamacare be unconstitutional.  Since any activity can be defined as commerce or affecting commerce, with no limits, none, all activity may be regulated.

Maybe I'll go to FDR's grave and honor it with a healthy BM after a long lunch at the Taco Bell.  There's your commerce clause. 

And any lawyer who argues that that's proper reading of the commerce clause can go straight to hell on a jet powered pogo stick. I'm sure that the Founding Fathers were all about writing a constitution that made us the mere subjects of 566 assholes in the Nation's Capital.   

I have nothing but utter contempt for anyone who thinks that way. 

199 @188, I don't have to drive.

I do have to breathe, however.

200

Ace and the rest of wingtards do not understand that Obamacare is constitutional under the "Necessary Free Shit Clause" of the New Abridged Living Breathing Constitution.

 

Also given this expanded power, Congress will not abuse it due to the "Trust us" clause in the New Abridged Living Breathing Constitution.

201 It's gonna stand, 5-4.  Kennedy will never, ever overturn such a compassionate law.

202 OT: Twitter reports Queef is out at Algore TV, to be replaced by Eliot Spitzer.

If it's true, we need some Thrusting Ewok.

203 Nah. You can't bribe a clerk. Most of the clerks are legit scholars who know that clerking for a justice sets them up for life. I know several and they would have never fucked that up.

204 We need to wrest control of the schools back, then wait for the current crop of Leftards to die off.

Private schools.  Someone in the "If I won the MegaMillions" thread mentioned starting a nation-wide chain of private schools teaching manliness.

I would so do that.  Lit classes would feature Homer (world lit) and Hemingway (US Lit), for instance.  I'd probably have to commission my own textbooks, though.

205 Have an ex brother in law who is a Massachussets liberal. Early 20s in 94 during health care debate and he was making a ton of money in a business that did not provide health insurance which he whined about and said that the government should be giving him because he did not get it through work. He did not even know how much it cost to have he just thought the government should give it to him. I made his check and it was something like 80 a month for a young single male then for what was good coverage for just a guy walking in off the street. Of course, he had a $1500 tv (big ass tube then) and an even more expensive video camera. So more than a couple of years of health insurance in a couple of electronic toys. But no, he couldn't pay for health care. We had to give it to him Liberals. Sheesh.

206 mike@182, I'm thinking because it takes time to do all the charges and have whom ever double check it. Yeah, but if you’re going to pay out of pocket, how can you choose which services you want without knowing what they individually cost? That’s part of the problem; the way we pay for this now makes it difficult to buck the system. I don’t want to find out what the “bill” would be now—I’m afraid to know. Also, in this hospital everything was computerized. Every service we got was sent through their network; the doctor didn’t look at anything until it could be viewed on a terminal/computer. Their computers probably did know what the bill was before we left, because it already knew what all of the services were. I even asked for just a rough estimate; that’s when I got “a lot”. Which is when I stopped asking…

207 Posted by: xbradtc at March 30, 2012 04:51 PM (yVIqn)


Only on even numbered days comrade!

208 If he does that, either he gets impeached, or the nation is done. States like TX and OK won't just sit around and let him ignore the Supreme Court on that one, they'll force the issue somehow.

If he tries to push that crap, things will get real hot, real quick.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 04:49 PM (8y9MW)

 

----------------------------------------

 

I'm not underestimating how low this regime can go.  That's why my guns are clean, oiled, and loaded.

209

What does the Constitution have to do with an SC decision?

 

They sold us out a long time ago with the income tax, and just got worse from there. They just make shit up, now. The last gift they could give us was to make the 2nd Ammendment an individual right.

210 9 I pay for pregnancy coverage, and Mrs928 has had her tubes tied. WTF. Yeah, but they didn't cut your tubes, did they? Oh, you mean your insurance won't cover your expenses if you get the neighbor's daughter in the family way? oh...

211 I want to be free to be stupid; I don't even want smart insurance. I want to live my life, and if I have lived it well, I can afford to buy more time when that time comes. I will not succumb to fear.

212

Or, if a Man speaks in the Forest, and there is no Woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

 

Yes.

 

213 >>>Wrong. My cat could not be in a superposition state if the rule only applied to subatomic particles. The whole point of the Schrodingers cat thought experiment was to show that everything was subject to the same physics as subatomic particles.

Um no.
The electrical/gravitational fields in matter keep you from persisting in wave function because your actual position causes impacts to all particles in the field. That's why they never try to do quantum entanglement experimentation with matter. The thought experiment of the cat is just that a thought experiment, that is as real as a massless frictionless surface.

214 If he tries to push that crap, things will get real hot, real quick.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 04:49 PM (8y9MW)

 

Fat people don't rebel. That is a universal truth.

215

Private schools. Someone in the "If I won the MegaMillions" thread mentioned starting a nation-wide chain of private schools teaching manliness.

 

Yes! I've been saying for years: "ManCamp". Day one, chewing tobacco until you barf, Day 2: chug a beer, Day 3: fight club, Day 4 Tree climbing, starting a fire, BB gun battles, whittling, bike ramps, all that normal boy stuff.

216 If you show up naked at JCPenny's, they should be required to treat you, or at least stabilize your bareassedness with the current temperature.

217  I'd probably have to commission my own textbooks, though.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 04:52 PM (8y9MW)

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Easy peazy.  There's a lot of tech schools around that would love to have a project like that.

218 you mean your insurance won't cover your expenses if you get the neighbor's daughter in the family way? oh. In the hypothetical libertarian world where buying health insurance is checking boxes of what you want to insure against, I will check that box just because itÂ’s there.

219 >>> It's true. The reason they picked healthcare to communize first was for the control.

First? 

Don't forget roads, canals, railroads, interstate shipping, the airwaves, money, banking, medical care for the elderly, schools, (intrastate) insurance ...

220 I even asked for just a rough estimate; that’s when I got “a lot”. Which is when I stopped asking…

They were lying to you.  They knew exactly how much your services cost.  It just would have taken them some effort to look it up for you.

As for their computer already knowing- no, probably not.  I've been in health care IT for a long time (thank goodness I'm out of that), and most hospitals have some of the lousiest software you can imagine.  There are 8-figure-a-year companies who specifically do "re-pricing" services for hospitals- basically they take the bill, run it through a computer program loaded with contract logic for the Insurance Company for that hospital, and spit out a number on what the break-down should be.

To my knowledge, not one hospital has software in house that will do that for them.

221 oh, and remember, this august law got passed by the skin of its teeth after bribing and changing the rules of Congress to deem and pass the damn thing. It's not as prestigious as the libs would like to believe. cornhusker kick back? deem'n pass? etc.?

222 A sidenote:

WRT insurance and Tx, does anyone, as a patient, ever look at the costs before deciding a procedure? You know, shop? Were you to ask a doctor how much something costs, they couldn't (wouldn't?) tell you. It's essentially out of their hands as it's offloaded to their backoffice handlers. Sure, doctors want to provide the best service possible to arrive at the best outcome regardless of costs in reverence to the Hippocratic oath (or similar ethical guide), but insurance removes a barrier in the decision tree as costs are ignored.

That's a serious problem where insurance has perverted the market. Patients with insurance will not consider costs because they've already signed up for an earned discount due to the dues they've already paid. Costs no longer matter which leads to expensive treatment protocols. (Also, defensive medicine has a role here.)

Availability of health insurance is not the best answer no matter how health care is addressed. We have market perversions that are actually exacerbated by insurance schemes. Sure, fee for service can be cost-prohibitive in serious health crises and can't be ignored, but insurance can actually drive up costs as the pool of contributors using more services (or more expensive services) increases.

223 216 I have three sons. That's my house before breakfast. One reason I don't cook real bacon is the fights.....

224 OT: Twitter reports Queef is out at Algore TV, to be replaced by Eliot Spitzer.

If it's true, we need some Thrusting Ewok.

The NYT is reporting that he's out.  The Current TV press release makes it pretty clear that it was not congenial parting of ways.  They're not even giving him the opportunity to sign off.

225 I'm calling this a three day weekend for ace.

226 I think the decisions have already been made. All thats left is announcement and write upa.

227 Agree with Truman that Kennedy is loving having his ego stroked and will rule on giving away other people's shit, because he can.

228

Anything mentioned about the chicanery of the waivers during these arguments?

 

Already seeing editorials about "Conservative Republican Activist Judges stealing bread from orphans and otherwise engaging in typical right wing hostilities"...in antipication of a loss, presumably.

229 There's a lot of tech schools around that would love to have a project like that.

I was talking about for the "normal" subjects- like history and science and such.

But, yes, starting probably in 7th or 8th grade, Shop Class would be mandatory.

230 or to put it another way, this law was only passable for a brief window of a few months during the 111th congress and will never be viable again. Not that that matters for true scholars, but this "law" is and was a pos. There shouldn't be any due deference to this living abortion.

231

227I think the decisions have already been made. All thats left is announcement and write upa.

 

don't forget the lamentation of the wimmins....

232 There are 8-figure-a-year companies who specifically do "re-pricing" services for hospitals- basically they take the bill, run it through a computer program loaded with contract logic for the Insurance Company for that hospital, and spit out a number on what the break-down should be. Thanks for the info. Sounds like something that puts health care well into the Bureaucracy Event Horizon. IÂ’m guessing these companies would lobby against any changes to make things simpler?

233 I also wonder, how this law could be constitutional in light of how much power it gives to the secretary. Agency law probably demands more oversight by congress.

234 Yes.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 04:56 PM (VtjlW)

 

Is that going to be how Alextopia is going to work? A babe-ocracy? I might want to see if Lord Humongus has better terms. I hear he pay's extra if you can rebuild a carburetor.

235 Yeah, Rush was playing some woman whining about how the republicans that Bush appointed are ruining the court for everybody. Everything was fine until the republicans messed it up with all those nasty conservatives. Sigh.

236 does anyone, as a patient, ever look at the costs before deciding a procedure? You know, shop?

I do.  And, yes, the doctors know- or can get a really close estimate.  It takes them some effort and time (which is why they don't like to do it), but they can.  If they tell you that they absolutely can't, they're lying to you.

Their contracts with the Health Insurance companies tell them exactly what they will get paid- to the penny- for any given service.

237 IÂ’m guessing these companies would lobby against any changes to make things simpler?

Yeah, but there aren't enough of them to matter, much.  The hospitals (and insurance companies) would love to have some of the regulation that makes things so complex torn down.

238 There 's no reason employers can not continue to get tax benefits for the health care plans they compensate employees with. The solution is no to do away with that, but to extend those same benefits to individuals. Then they can slip the leash of their employers choice, and get the group coverage they want. HSAs and high deductible policies will help return the true status of consumer/ payer to individuals and break down the shell game cost shifting.

239 A massive conservative justice  fist blasting the teeth from the mouth of Zero and his pubic ectoparasites would be a massive blow for freedom.

240 Yeah, Rush was playing some woman whining about how the republicans that Bush appointed are ruining the court for everybody. Everything was fine until the republicans messed it up with all those nasty conservatives. Sigh.

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 05:02 PM (CMM9V)

Nina Totenberg, poster girl for the Obtuse Insular Media Leftard Syndrome

241 One of the funniest parts about the feral government's bogus health insurance/care argument was the implication that people do most of their expensive health treatment when unconscious, bleeding profusely, and without any possibility of shopping around for anything ...

Funny, just 20 years ago people used to have the concept of "seeking a second opinion" for most of their really important health care decisions.  Second opinions, of course, are redundant and wasteful; "They're all certified doctors, some even by Hah-vahd, so they all know the same shit.  What do you need two people to tell you the same thing for?  ANyone with a white lab coat will do."

242 My son's high school is closed today because the drama faggots set the curtain on fire with their big light and all the sprinklers went off.

Heh. I'm sure there was a lot of screaming and spastic running.

243 Wasn't it Nina Totenberg who wanted Jesse Helm's grandchildren to die of AIDS?

244 I was talking about for the "normal" subjects- like history and science and such.

But, yes, starting probably in 7th or 8th grade, Shop Class would be mandatory.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 05:00 PM (8y9MW)

 

------------------------------------------

 

I'm talking about printing the books.  Many tech schools have printing courses and would love to do something like this. 

245 don't cook real bacon is the fights.....

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 04:58 PM (CMM9V)

 

Let the one who works hardest have the most, or turn it into a lesson on rationing.

246

245I was talking about for the "normal" subjects- like history and science and such.But, yes, starting probably in 7th or 8th grade, Shop Class would be mandatory.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 30, 2012 05:00 PM (8y9MW)

 

By 8th grade, they should be able to stalk, kill and field dress a hobo.

247 It is toast...we just have to wait for it to pop up! In June :-(

248 Heh. I'm sure there was a lot of screaming and spastic running.

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 05:05 PM (CMM9V)

 

 

 

 

Yes, and much expressive wrist flapping, along with furious mincing.

249 50Ace,

If the Commerce Clause is being correctly invoked, there is nothing unconstitutional about the federal govt outlawing economically useful products such as catastrophic insurance.   ...most legal scholars would say it also has the right to outlaw intrastate catastrophic insurance policies as well because they affect interstate prices. (This is stupid, but that is the precedent.)

As for liberty, what is good policy is also not relevant. It's just as liberty-reducing to take away my ability to buy crappy cars as it is to take away my ability to buy good cars.

Posted by: chris not rock at March 30, 2012 04:01 PM (dX5s2)

 

Chris not Rock, I don't accept the premises these assholes have built up out of so many Marxist lies for the last 100 years.

Number 1: The Commerce Clause has not been correctly invoked since the FDR administration.

Number 2:  Fuck most legal scholars.  Most legal scholars are a bunch of assholes who can dress up a lie to turn the plain meaning of a law on its head.

Number 3: Fuck precedence.  These assholes don't don't respect precedence when they create the precedent.  Let's get back to original meaning and original intent.  

 

250 Everything was fine until the republicans messed it up with all those nasty conservatives. Sigh.

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 05:02 PM (CMM9V)

Dagny, it was Nina Totenberg of NPR.


TOTENBERG:  It's much more ideologically divided.  Because of the Bush appointments, which were very, very, very conservative --

TOTENBERG:  -- the court has become so much more conservative.  The court has lost some credibility since Bush vs. Gore.

TOTENBERG:  It used to have the approval or the respect when you did polls of people in both parties, and now increasingly it's Republicans who respect the court and Democrats who are having great reservations about it, and I'm not sure there's anything -- if a court is gonna take us in a dramatically different direction, it's representative of what we see in the rest of the country and you're gonna see people split on it the way they are about everything else.

RUSH:  Damn those Republicans. Damn those conservatives. Everything was fine 'til they came along.  Everything was hunky-dory and then the conservatives came along and made it all hard-core and partisan.  You know, there are very conservative people on this court, Ginsburg and Breyer and Kagan and Sotomayor.  They're just normal, standard, middle-of-the-road people.  There nothing political about them.  Then you've got Scalia, and you've got Thomas, you've got Roberts and Alito.  That Bush ruined the court.  Now, here's Nina, I don't know that she intended to do this, but when she said here, "If the court's gonna take us in a dramatically different direction that's representative of what we see in the rest of the country," meaning liberalism is losing in her mind, they're in trouble. Obama's in trouble.  The polling data, this guy's not loved. There is no messianic feel for Obama like there was in 2008. They're very troubled by this. 

251 furious mincing

Poetry.

252 188
A libtard told me "You have to buy auto insurance to drive, so why not health care?"
Well I do buy that, but in a risk pool that is the lowest nationwide. If you drink and have a wreck you are not covered.
With O'Care I have to help pay for everyones bad habits and I don't want to subsidize people's bad habits so put me in with the teetotalers, non-smoking and no risky hobbies and I'm ok. But what they want for two sixty year old people is more than I spend on groceries, autos and homeowners.

Posted by: Panzer Trout at March 30, 2012 04:46 PM (cYQg0)

---------

Technically you don't even need insurance per se. Here in OH the minimum coverage you need is $40,000. The state will gladly let you deposit that amount with them, and let you drive insurance free.

253 246 I don't mean verbal fights or squabbles. I mean full out fights. Once the baby brother ate all the bacon while the first two were still wrestling and gouging. Then they use their pieces as tender-----2 pieces buy you the big tv for the day, etc. I don't feel like breaking things up anymore---it involves my pulling a lot of hair.

254

Senate Page: "Senator, there's a problem at the essay contest!"

 

Senator: "Please son, I'm very busy..."

 

Senate Page: "A little girl is losing faith in democracy!!!"

 

Senator: "GOOD LORD!!!"

255 Just as a BTW, last year's top furious mincer got an appointment to the Naval Academy. DADT recruit.

256  Just as a BTW, last year's top furious mincer got an appointment to the Naval Academy. DADT recruit.

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 05:13 PM (CMM9V)

 

-------------------------------------

 

It's the Navy.  No one should be surprised about this.

257 257Just as a BTW, last year's top furious mincer got an appointment to the Naval Academy. DADT recruit.

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 05:13 PM (CMM9V)

 

Is that the coveted Ru Paul award?

258 AllenG@237,

I submit you're an outlier. Almost every time I've ever heard pricing and procedure publicly discussed, the response has been, "I was shocked with the price. Good thing insurance covered it." This is typically after the bill had arrived. IOW the decision for the procedure was done before and ignorant of costs. Or, if before a procedure, "I don't know how much it's going to cost and I don't care. I have insurance."

As far as quotes for service, I've had doctors say, "I have no idea what the costs are. They'll be pretty high." "High" being a highly subjective price tag, of course; but if a doctor says it, well that's going to be "put me or keep me in the poorhouse" pricing. I understand the time investment required to research pricing, and there's no way for a doctor to know to the penny what something will cost due to the complexities of billing, but an approximation should be readily available and the doctor should know it during consults to determine a treatment plan.

259

Ok, Imma make this simple.  Do you cracka-ass cracka counter-revolutionary enemies of the people oppose Obamacare?

Signal yes by shooting yourself in the head.

260

@3: "I still cannot understand how the waivers don't blow a hole right through this law."

 

Thanks for your lovely offer, but the law is 2700 pages thick.  I'm not that well hung.

261 It's the Navy. No one should be surprised about this.

Posted by: Soona at March 30, 2012 05:16 PM (2ENpi)

 

Rum, sodomy and the lash. Oh, wait, wrong navy. If they allowed booze on USN ships, they'd raise moral.

262 >>>and write upa.

Yeah that little part, is just as important, as the actual position taken. Take your time and get it right.

263

In that case they gave you an incentive to participate in the market.

You still had a choice not to participate.

ObamaCare by comparison--penalizes an inaction--the choice to not participate in the health care insurance market.

Posted by: tasker at March 30, 2012 04:19 PM (r2PLg)

 

Just so we keep ourselves from even accepting their premise, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to incitivize participation in the market?  Along with that they can disincentivize the market - or coerce, if you will. 

264

The leftist commenters over at Volokh still can't understand that there is a counterargument to their pro-ACA arguments.  This is on a thread where the topic is why the left seems so shocked that there are arguments to be made against their position.  Thus, even after the arguments and the surrounding publicity, they still don't get it.

265 I'm shocked, that IS a good argument.  Not necessarily a good constitutional argument, but a good gut, 'let's be reasonable' argument.

266

As someone with high deductible health insurance (and accompanying health savings account), I can say that for healthy people it's definitely more cost effective. And I'm far from being young.

267 The left was engaged in wishful thinking when they acted like the whole argument against the mandate wasn't to be taken seriously. Then they got shocked. Now, they're back where they were, saying that Roberts and/or Anthony Kennedy will vote to uphold the mandate. And conservatives, after a brief period of feeling confident, are now wringing their hands over something Anthony Kennedy said near the end of oral arguments about people being “uniquely, proximately, very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," appearing as though he may give some weight to the government's argument after all.

All predictable. All tedious.

The Supreme Court will strike down the law (not just the mandate, but the whole law) 5-4, probably with Kennedy writing the opinion. Mark my words.

268 The Major Medical argument makes sense. What passes for health insurance nowadays is more along the lines of a buyers club.

Maybe I can get better prices on stuff if I join CostCo or Sams Club, but I don't have to join them to get the stuff that I want to buy.  And maybe the membership fee (aka "premium") is higher than the savings offset, so it makes sense to not join and to pay my expenses out-of-pocket, as it were.

Putting it this way, mandatory coverage makes even less sense.

269 Too true.

Attention state legislators: I just want catastrophic insurance. I don't want a plan in which I'm compelled to pay for someone else's sex change, psychiatric care, chiropractic treatment, naturopathy, homeopathy, voodoo enema, wiccan acupuncture, etc. Insurance companies should be free to offer plans featuring any or all of those items, of course, but I'm not interested, so don't compel them to do so.

Attention federal legislators: I want he freedom to choose my medical coverage from any insurer, nationwide, unconstrained by whatever conditions are imposed by my state.

Isn't this just common sense? No wonder leftists (can we please stop calling them liberals?) don't get it.

270 All I need to know Justice Kennedy is if we get to pull the plug on some old geezer so I can get a free nipple piercing.

271 I'm late to the party, but do you want to know why doctors CAN'T give you a price list for services? Simply, no two insurance companies reimburse the same rate for the same procedure. Medicare and Medicaid reimburse the very least, so we have to give them a very inflated (think list price) number, for example. By comparison, if you offer most doctors cash for their services, not only do they usually offer you a pretty healthy discount, but it's also a lot cheaper for the docs. Why? Because then you don't have to involve the insurance company middleman.

272 All I want is major medical.  A policy with about a $20,000 deductible and a lifetime cap of $1million would make me very happy, and hey, as it turns out I can get one for just $70/month!  If I lived in Texas.  Which I don't--I live in California, which has a huge list of mandated coverage, the end result of which is the cheapest coverage I can get is $350/month.  So they price me out of the health care market "for my own good," then point to uninsured people like me as a reason for single payer.
What a scam.

273 Now, ObamaCare supporters would like to frame this case as a choice between two tough options -- either we permit this constitutionally-absurd bill, or else millions of people can't have medical coverage and will suffer and die.
Except that's a completely false and lying argument because before this bill passed we were not in a situation where millions suffered and died without the legislation. Losing this bill leaves us no worse off than we were a year ago or even today. To argue otherwise is to deliberately, intentionally look people right in the eye and lie outrageously.

274 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 BRILLIANT CARVIN UTTERLY DEMOLISHED OBAMACARE - AND PROVES IT IS AN AWFUL ANTI-YOUTH BILL NRO: Carvin exposes the cost-shifting argument for the mandate. Much of the legal argument for the mandate turns on the ability of people with the freedom not to buy insurance to drive premiums up for everyone else by getting uncompensated care. Carvin points out to Justice Kennedy that the true rationale for ObamacareÂ’s mandate is different. ItÂ’s not about keeping young, healthy people from shifting costs to others. In that case, you might require them to buy catastrophic coverage. ItÂ’s about shifting costs to those people. ThatÂ’s why the mandate actually prohibits the purchase of catastrophic coverage. BRILLIANT. HE SHOWS THAT OBAMACARE IS AN ATTEMPT TO SHIFT THE INCREASED COSTS OF COVERING ALL PEOPLE - REGARDLESS OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS - TO HEALTHY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY WON'T BE GETTING HOSPITALIZED AND DON'T REALLY NEED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE AND ARE PROBABLY WISE NOT TO BUY IT. FOX/VAN SUSTEREN: VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Justice Breyer asked you a question, which is slightly different from those. He asked -- I'm paraphrasing it -- asked if the federal government could not order vaccinations if some terrible epidemic was sweeping the nation, and your answer was what, whether the government could order vaccinations the nation? CARVIN: There's an old case called Morrison, where the -- people were doing horrible things to women, violence against women. And the Court said, Look, it's a terrible activity, but it's not an economic activity. And what you can regulate under the commerce clause is economic activity. Vaccinations is not an economic activity. It's protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry. In our system, that's done by the states. The states can control and obviously will control any kind of nationwide epidemic. But this is an even easier case because the analogy here would be, Can you force somebody to buy a vaccine for somebody else? In other words, I'm not the problem, I'm not the one who's creating the problem, but I am the solution that the government's used. And that's the key thing to understand. The reason they're compelling the uninsured to buy this insurance, as Congress found, was to lower health insurance premiums because they're bringing in a whole bunch of healthy people into the risk pool, and that way, bringing down the health insurance premiums to counteract the fact that they brought in all these sick people who obviously are going to drive up health insurance premiums. (OLD PEOPLE ALSO GET SCREWED TOO BECAUSE OTHER ADDED COSTS OF OBAMACARE ARE COVERED BY OBAMA TAKING $500BILLION AWAY FROM MEDICARE.) Posted by Reliapundit at 6:21 PM on 3/28/12

275 I cannot be overemphasized that catastrophic coverage is the only form of health insurance that meets the dictionary definition of insurance.

276 That is exactly how AG Cucinelli has been framing this argument since day 1....he held webcasts with us to explain his argument (and mix in a bunch of quotes from the Founders and previous case law) and he would easily substitute a Chevy Volt for health care insurance and that's when you see just how great of a danger allowing this to stand really could turn into.

277 ace, this is exactly why your blog is a must read for me. You have struck the proverbial nail upon it's cranium. I, personally, don't so much have a problem with requiring medical insurance as I do with the specification of what must be covered. But what would we expect from the foremost practitioner of crony capitalism of our lifetime?