Obamacare just committed suicide before the SCOTUS

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by IP, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    I agree that the penalty is steep, but don't agree that not expecting illness absolves any responsibility.
     
  2. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    I believe this is Romney's position as well.
     
  3. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Don't think it should. But I do think it should be possible to attain the appropriate medical care.
     
  4. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    It isn't like it is a panacea though.
     
  5. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    Even CNN Legal Analyst is calling it a trainwreck for the Obama Administration.

    Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration."

    "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."


    Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble' - The Hill's Video
     
  6. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    There's probably upwards of 50 things that could be done.

    1. sell it across state lines.
    2. work to not tie it to employment
    3. frivolous lawsuits
    4. cover catastrophic situations like law's situation

    Those are four without even thinking about it. I just don't think Obamacare does anything to really solve the problem.
     
  7. JohnnyQuickkick

    JohnnyQuickkick Calcio correspondent

    I can attest to a few things about costs too. I work at a veterinary hospital, but we're buying a lot of the same stuff from the same vendors like Fisher et al that any hospital is. They get you contracted, and then they do whatever the hell they want with prices and there's nothing you can do about it. At least not us, it may be different since I'm at a state institution, but there's been quite a few instances where we've found the same stuff cheaper with other vendors, fight like crazy to try to use that vendor, and a lot of the time get shut out. Also, it seems like these companies sell common everyday stuff for far more than you think it should cost, but they're Science Scissors, so they cost an inane amount of money. Stuff like that all over the place.
     
  8. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    I know I will get crucified for this, but I don't give a shit. There is nothing moral about profiting off of someone's health. Some things are more sacred than money. Just calling it like I see it. It's easy to sit back and make absolute statements about this issue when it has never happened to you or a loved one. Law's story is utter horseshit. Too much lumping good hard-working folks in with the freeloaders going on. No excuse for the situation like Law described to happen in this country. Have we really reached a point where we can honestly say 'tough break' and allow those that have contributed all their lives to crash and burn over a health issue? If so, we seriously need to examine our values as a society. That attitude sounds more like a real 'Death Panel' to me than anything in Obamacare (which I do not support overall- nothing but subsidizing private insurance.)
     
  9. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Most Canadians would say the difference is that this is health insurance, not healthcare.
     
  10. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    It isn't the healthcare industry or Congress who are denying people access to healthcare - it's the insurance companies.

    They control the entirety of healthcare, save the slimmest margins on both sides of the bell curve. They determine who can / can't enroll, the rates they'll pay, who they can see, when they see them, what will / won't be done when they are seen, the scheduled amount paid to the provider, how much the patient pays in deductible / co-pays, if a referral is allowed, to whom and for what - and the cycle repeats itself.

    Every single aspect of woeful inefficiency and insufficiency of our current healthcare system - and there are many millions, often tragic and unfortunate - could be corrected by health insurance companies, if not overnight, then in very short order.

    And what does the Obama plan hope to accomplish? To force everyone to buy a product from the very people who I personally believe are primarily responsible for the mess we're currently in.

    That they are made "the solution" and not "the target" is enough for me to wan to see the Obama plan stricken (Constitutional issues, aside), because it's the only way that we're ever going to address the problem in an effective way, and that's by applying both public pressure and political action in a steady force across their windpipe.

    How about ending the prohibition against the interstate sale of policies?
    What about giving them tax credits for every indigent person they insure at a free / reduced premium?
    How about saying that they must accept "X"% of indigent patients on their rolls or incur an additional tax penalty?
    What about telling them that we'll (the feds) reimburse them at 150% of their scale for each preventative / wellness service provided to indigent / low-income families and persons? The more preventative services they receive, and the more benchmarks they achieve, the higher the reimbursement rate goes - and if they enroll but make no progress, then the insurance company has to carry them for free until they do. I don't give a shit if they make trillions of dollars, really, but if we we're paying for it, then at least make sure that it actually works to reduce the overall grotesque health of our citizens.

    And these are just a few ideas - and each probably rife with problems - from someone who doesn't know anything. There are people far smarter than I who could, and should, figure this out. They just don't want to.
     
  11. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    8

    Kennedy is the only one that didn't have his mind made up.
     
  12. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    Ed Norton did it.

    [video=youtube;JRSdhFX01GY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRSdhFX01GY[/video]
     
  13. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    And John Roberts
     
  14. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    The exchange right here between Scalia and the SG is the entire case.

    .

    This is why the SG performed so miserably today. The argument is very simple and very compelling.
    (1) There is an entire section of the US Constitution dedicated to laying out categories -- enumerated powers -- over which the Federal Government may regulate.
    (2) If the individual mandate is constitutional, then there is no activity or inactivity over which the federal government couldn't regulate. There is no longer a cognizable limiting principle on federal power.
    (3) But the framers of the constitution couldn't possibly have intended for the federal government to have limitless regulatory power, or they wouldn't have taken the time to enumerate the damn categories.
    (4) So if the individual mandate is constitutional, we may as well get out a sharpie and just mark through Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

    So, basically, all the government had to do to win this case is argue the following: "under the rationale that we are asking you to use to find the individual mandate consistent with the commerce clause, activities [x, y, z] would still be limited strictly to state regulation. The federal government still wouldn't be able to regulate over activities [x, y, z].

    The SG couldn't come up with one. There are 5 justices who do not take kindly to the idea of taking a sharpie through a chunk of the US Constitution. Thus, bye bye mandate.

    That's it. That's the case.

     
  15. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Excellent post, KB. As a layman, I sometimes struggle to grasp not only the secondary but even the tertiary issues at play, or which will influence the decision.

    This being said, and as murderous as Day 1 was universally believed to be for the Obama plan, I'm not convinced that it doesn't squeak through, and doubt that it gets struck down in its entirety.
     
  16. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Another question KB -

    When in the world do you sleep?
     
  17. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    without money as a motivator i very much doubt we would have seen as many medical advances as we have this century. and as i said before there are plenty of non health related situations where people go bankrupt because they were ill prepared and got a "tough break" but we aren't expecting the public to pay for those mistakes.
     
  18. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    I don't mean this as an insult. You claim you have no religion or are agnostic (can't remember which- so many heathens on this site-:D). I would argue that you are very religious- you worship money. That's fine if it works for you. Wouldn't work for me. Different strokes, I guess.

    I know that money is a motivating factor, but it shouldn't be the main factor cases of life or death. Not-for-profit is the way to go, imo. Everyone gets paid for their services rendered from inventors to orderlies. When medical decisions are based on who can and can't pay especially treatment of chronic expensive treatments, you do have a de facto Death Panel.
     
  19. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    medical decisions are not based on who can and can't pay in this country. we do expect people with means to pay their bills and yes that means some people will go bankrupt in the process. but we arent' denying care. i like money yes. it makes my and my family's life easier. i also realize the basic fact that money is a primary motivating factor for most progress. human generosity can only go so far. if that is worshiping money so be it.
     
  20. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

Share This Page