JMS synopsis of the Obama Care Supreme Court Hearings..

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I would say that it is absolutely possible and absolutely likely that we see these kinds of things happen if this Law is found to be Constitutional.

You realize we have to actually vote in a majority of congressman and a supermajority of senators who are going to vote that you have to eat broccoli, right? And if they do that, we can then vote them out. This is the biggest scare tactic. There is no pandora's box.

But again, this law sucks. The only problem is that health insurance is going to get more and more expensive. Hopefully it doesn't bankrupt the country before we figure out we need a single payor or public option to control costs.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Hawaii requires that all new construction have solar panels installed.

This is an interesting point you bring up here Tulane. Certain States have passed certain legislature that indirectly effects Obamacare. I think States should have the right to pass Laws that make sense for their specific welfare. For example, I think that Massachusetts should be allowed to continue on with their own form of Healthcare but I don't think the Federal Government should be on the hook for bailing it out financially. If they want assistance from the Government, in that area, then they should conform to Government Regulations in that area and it should all be done through the process that is legal and in place, according to the rules of our Governing Constitutions. However, I don't think the Federal Government should be allowed to step in and change that through mandate such as the one we see in Obamacare. The State of Virginia, prior to Obamacare every passing, has laws on the books that prohibit mandates forcing citizens to buy Health Insurance. The fact that the Federal Government has told Virginia that they must buy Health Insurance regadless of their existing law is BS. It's headed to the Supreme Court and we will see what happens there.

There are State Laws that have been passed that are going to challenge Obamacare, one way or the other, regardless.

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 09:00 AM ----------

I assume that the reason they didn't label it that way, was political.

They didn't want to get beat over the head with "Democrat Tax Increase" for the next 20 years.

Actually, if I am not mistaken Larry, the Administration did initially try and get this proposed as a Tax but could not get it passed. They then changed the language. Originally, it was proposed as a Tax.

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 09:07 AM ----------

You realize we have to actually vote in a majority of congressman and a supermajority of senators who are going to vote that you have to eat broccoli, right? And if they do that, we can then vote them out. This is the biggest scare tactic. There is no pandora's box.

But again, this law sucks. The only problem is that health insurance is going to get more and more expensive. Hopefully it doesn't bankrupt the country before we figure out we need a single payor or public option to control costs.

You realize that we voted in a Bill that was released at 12:00 AM in the morning, was comprised of over 2000 pages, and that Law makers were given 10 hours to read, and that this Bill essentially changed the landscape of America right? You realize that the law passed, under such ridiculous circumstances, was done through political pressure and had nothing at all to do with how the actual Congressional Process is supposed to work right?

But yeah, I do realize that. I trust that you, in turn, realize that we do in fact, have to worry about such things.

[twa]

http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? :ols:You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

MR. KNEEDLER: Well -

[Madison Redskin]

You realize we have to actually vote in a majority of congressman and a supermajority of senators who are going to vote that you have to eat broccoli, right? And if they do that, we can then vote them out. This is the biggest scare tactic. There is no pandora's box.

Though I do admit it works 9 times out of 10, I do not want to rely on majority rule. Why not scrap other parts of the Constitution on the theory that majority rule works?

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 09:23 AM ----------

Unfortunately, my response is "Do you really want to try to argue that the government doesn't have the authority to pass laws that apply to all citizens?"

Where did I make that argument? If you find an example of me doing so, I'll bend over, tuck my head between my legs, and toss my own salad.

EDIT - It's perfectly reasonable to defend Obamacare on grounds that the status quo is unacceptable, that Obamacare will be a net positive for society, and even that it is constitutional. However, it is unreasonable, in my view, to pretend that "it's business as normal," "nothing to see here," "don't worry about the precedent it might set," etc. And you don't ignore the issue of precedent simply because some people are making unreasonable arguments and going apoplectic.

[Larry]

Where did I make that argument? If you find an example of me doing so, I'll bend over, tuck my head between my legs. . .

When you attempted to argue that Obamacare is some vastly revolutionary thing, because it applies to all citizens.

This is the way the argument goes:

"This law is revolutionary, because it compels people to buy something"

"But lots of laws compel people to buy something"

"But that law only applies to some people. This law applies to everybody"

"But lots of laws apply to everybody."

In order to try to argue that this law is in some way revolutionary, you have to observe that this is (at least, as far as I know) the first law that combines two things which the government has done thousands of times, before.

[Madison Redskin]

When you attempted to argue that Obamacare is some vastly revolutionary thing, because it applies to all citizens.

This is the way the argument goes:

"This law is revolutionary, because it compels people to buy something"

"But lots of laws compel people to buy something"

"But that law only applies to some people. This law applies to everybody"

"But lots of laws apply to everybody."

In order to try to argue that this law is in some way revolutionary, you have to observe that this is (at least, as far as I know) the first law that combines two things which the government has done thousands of times, before.

Just how much do you want to see me toss my own salad?

It is revolutionary insofar as it combines those two things and I find that meaningful (and so do the moderates on the Court).

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 09:51 AM ----------

http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/

A liberal friend clerked for Justice Stevens (ret.) a few years back. He said most everyone likes Scalia (including the libs), in large part because he's got a good sense of humor.

[Larry]

A liberal friend clerked for Justice Stevens (ret.) a few years back. He said most everyone likes Scalia (including the libs), in large part because he's got a good sense of humor.

One of Greggory MacDonald's Fletch books makes a reference to judges getting paid for sitting. "The sitting-getting-lied-to".

I would assume that a sense of humor would be necessary for survival, for a judge.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think the question is one of limiting the ability of Congress to pass Laws that apply to all Americans. I believe that it's a question of passing Laws that apply to all Americans that may be unconstitutional.

I think that this is an important distinction.

[Madison Redskin]

One of Greggory MacDonald's Fletch books makes a reference to judges getting paid for sitting. "The sitting-getting-lied-to".

I would assume that a sense of humor would be necessary for survival, for a judge.

I think it's probably a good thing to have for anyone, but especially for lawyers and judges (who deal with fights, pissed off people, etc. for a living). I guess it's also a good thing to have for us Tailgate warriors as well.

[Larry]

I don't think the question is one of limiting the ability of Congress to pass Laws that apply to all Americans. I believe that it's a question of passing Laws that apply to all Americans that may be unconstitutional.

I think that this is an important distinction.

That are unconstitutional, because they require people to buy things?

But, again, we have thousands of laws that already do that.

Again, the only thing that's unique about this law, is that it combines two things that are already being done, in thousands of laws, right now.

[Madison Redskin]

Suppose Roche sells Wonder Drug for $10,000, but a lot of people are skeptical as to whether it's safe and, as a result, don't buy it. The government then concludes "everyone should have Wonder Drug, but people who aren't buying it are preventing Roche from taking advantage of economies of scale and lowering the price by a substantial amount." Under those circumstances, may the government lawfully "regulate" the market by punishing those who don't buy Wonder Drug?

Bump.

[Bliz]

I'm not sure. If I were in charge, I'd let the market define the program. If we start with broad federal mandates and it fails, is there ever a way to go back? Look at Medicare costs. Totally out of alignment with expectations, yet utterly unreformable in a meaningful sense. If you start with my idea and it fails, it's easy to just add government intervention. That's always where things tend to go either way.

I posed this question, about selling health insurance across states, to a buddy of mine who is a healthcare policy analyst for the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (and, in the interest of full disclosure in case it matters, a huge lib)

His opinion is that it won't reign in costs

"you're still dealing with the same underlying health care costs in a given place (costs of the providers, and the risk pool in the state), and really you're going to be dealing with the same health insurance companies - aetna, humana, BC, united, etc...

the cross-state thing is 100% about regulation, and allowing cross state sales will simply reduce the scope of benefits insurers are required to offer down to whatever the state with the fewest mandates is. so, some folks like it because it reduces benefit mandates, but it doesn't actually reduce underlying costs...

broadly speaking, health insurance is expensive because healthcare costs a lot of money... having your insurance company abide by the idaho legislature and the mandates they want to pass instead of the GA legislature doesn't change the fact that georgians are unhealthy, and it doesn't change the costs charged by GA providers. the policy sold in GA under the ID insurance laws would still be rated for the important GA-specific factors (population, providers, etc...)

that's the cross-state CON argument in a nutshell..."

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You realize that we voted in a Bill that was released at 12:00 AM in the morning, was comprised of over 2000 pages, and that Law makers were given 10 hours to read, and that this Bill essentially changed the landscape of America right? You realize that the law passed, under such ridiculous circumstances, was done through political pressure and had nothing at all to do with how the actual Congressional Process is supposed to work right?

But yeah, I do realize that. I trust that you, in turn, realize that we do in fact, have to worry about such things.

Honestly, we debated health care reform for 14 months.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That are unconstitutional, because they require people to buy things?

But, again, we have thousands of laws that already do that.

Again, the only thing that's unique about this law, is that it combines two things that are already being done, in thousands of laws, right now.

That are unconstitutional because they are found to be so by the Supreme Court.

This is a unique instance. The U.S. Government has never forced a Citizen to purchase a good, through mandate, with no recourse so far as I am aware.

[deejaydana]

So, I'm hearing that the ruling will be issued in June? Is this correct? I AM encouraged by Scalia's closing comments that they'll shoot Obamacare down but who really knows at this point.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Honestly, we debated health care reform for 14 months.

Perhaps, but the final Law changed multiple times. If it had stayed the same, there would have been no reason to redraft it at all. There would have been no reason to release it and drive it to the floor for a vote in the space of 10 hours. That, to me, is a big part of the problem. The Supreme Court does not want to have to go through this entire document. They have said as much. I think that if they are forced to do this, there is going to be a lot more fall out that comes from this.

[Jumbo]

You know, Madison, I was going to let the "salad tossing" rule 13 violation of yours go at first, given context etc, but since you had to go twice and since someone else felt it ok to repeat it, I'll go to "work" here instead of just enjoying reading. And I'll once again remind tailgaters that all the rules apply in here too--in this case #'s 13 & 6.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You know, Madison, I was going to let the "salad tossing" rule 13 violation of yours go at first, given context etc, but since you had to go twice and since someone else felt it ok to repeat it, I'll go to "work" here instead of just enjoying reading. And I'll once again remind tailgaters that all the rules apply in here too--in this case #'s 13 & 6.

You have a thankless job Jumbo.

How have you been?

[Jumbo]

How have you been?

Adjusting to a major change in life (albeit I assume temporary).

Not so much the definitely temporary change in residential location and paid-work activities, or the re-engaging of the mutant Jumbo clan after decades of distancing (the children seem spared of their parent's genetic and developmental deficiencies so far).

But more the new-found unity with one Jerry Jones and the cowboy nation, and the substitution of Mara as my primary NFCE object of disdain. Here's to his defeat and prolonged suffering at our hands, and may you kick some Giant ass on opening day.

Hope all is well with you. Sent a reply PM to Hos recently. You live in a state close to twa, so be careful. He has issues.

I like the women there, though, and love 6th Ave in Austin (from what I can remember---still a little pain in the right arm when fully extended with any serious weight being held).

[ABQCOWBOY]

Adjusting to a major change in life (albeit I assume temporary).

Not so much the definitely temporary change in residential location and paid-work activities, or the re-engaging of the mutant Jumbo clan after decades of distancing (the children seem spared of their parent's genetic and developmental deficiencies so far).

But more the new-found unity with one Jerry Jones and the cowboy nation, and the substitution of Mara as my primary NFCE object of disdain. Here's to his defeat and prolonged suffering at our hands, and may you kick some Giant ass on opening day.

Hope all is well with you. Sent a reply PM to Hos recently. You live in a state close to twa, so be careful. He has issues.

I like the women there, though, and love 6th Ave in Austin (from what I can remember---still a little pain in the right arm when fully extended with any serious weight being held).

You have a ton going on my friend. Thank you for the well wishes in regards to the NYGs and same to the Skins. It's not often that we are joined in a common purpose, lets hope we take full advantage.

Good luck on the Temp stuff. I have a feeling that many of us are going to be in similar situations as we move forward for various reasons.

Remember, it's only painful if you acknowledge it as such.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Perhaps, but the final Law changed multiple times. If it had stayed the same, there would have been no reason to redraft it at all. There would have been no reason to release it and drive it to the floor for a vote in the space of 10 hours. That, to me, is a big part of the problem. The Supreme Court does not want to have to go through this entire document. They have said as much. I think that if they are forced to do this, there is going to be a lot more fall out that comes from this.

The individual mandate was there from the beginning. It was debated ad nauseum.

[Wrong Direction]

His opinion is that it won't reign in costs

"you're still dealing with the same underlying health care costs in a given place (costs of the providers, and the risk pool in the state), and really you're going to be dealing with the same health insurance companies - aetna, humana, BC, united, etc...

the cross-state thing is 100% about regulation, and allowing cross state sales will simply reduce the scope of benefits insurers are required to offer down to whatever the state with the fewest mandates is. so, some folks like it because it reduces benefit mandates, but it doesn't actually reduce underlying costs...

broadly speaking, health insurance is expensive because healthcare costs a lot of money...

I appreciate the feedback, but I (unsurprisingly) disagree. The issue is the nature of mandates in the first place.

If you mandate that drug X is covered by state insurance plans, what is the incentive for company X to lower prices? Insurance is paying, so the answer is very little. However, if you don't mandate that drug X is covered, some insurance companies will cover it while others won't. The drug company will have huge incentive to lower the cost through the insurance company, otherwise they'll have to rely on customer cash sales. This is true of doctors too. Why pay physician rates when you're visiting for an ear infection? With less mandates, insurance companies would pay for the expertise needed to treat a condition, not necessarily for the professional treating the condition. Where a nurse practitioner or PA could do the job at 1/2 the cost, that's exactly where the market would go.

This is true across the board. Wheelchair prices aren't high because wheelchairs are expensive to make. They're high because insurance companies are forced to cover the items, removing much of the incentive to negotiate lower costs. This is why we see so many medical companies out there with 100+% profits.

My point is that healthcare costs aren't fixed because of the price of goods/services. They're largely fixed because of how government has created a one-size-fits-all model, while also severely limiting competition, in-state.

Remove the mandates, add more docs/nurses/PAs/pharmacists to the provider pool and watch prices align much more with value.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The individual mandate was there from the beginning. It was debated ad nauseum.

Perhaps but it was not called a mandate or a penalty for not purchasing coverage. At various points in the process, it was called a Tax. That, along with other pieces of this Bill, were changed along the way. The mandate and the Commerce Clause, used as justification for the Government to collect on said penalties is what is at issue with the Supreme Court.

[Wrong Direction]

The individual mandate was there from the beginning. It was debated ad nauseum.

And it was specifically considered not a tax...

And the Senate specifically removed severability language from the law, indicating that the law needs the mandate to stand.

I'm frankly stunned at how badly the government got wasted this week. Liberal justices were begging the government to define how the mandate has limiting principals, but they simply could not do so. They struggled to find a rationale for maintaining major parts of this law, but apparently failed to convince.

I'm not 100% positive that the entire law will be struck down, but I'm about 80% sure that it will look very different than it does today.

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 02:19 PM ----------

Perhaps but it was not called a mandate or a penalty for not purchasing coverage. At various points in the process, it was called a Tax. That, along with other pieces of this Bill, were changed along the way. The mandate and the Commerce Clause, used as justification for the Government to collect on said penalties is what is at issue with the Supreme Court.

For what it's worth, the federal government does have penalties in place today. They work as follows:

If you join, say Medicare Part D, in your initial eligibility period, you're not penalized.

If you don't join, you supposedly pay a higher premium if you choose to join in the future.

So, you're not mandated to join, but it's a disincentive to wait to join and you're only punished if you take the affirmative action to gain that insurance in the future.

[deejaydana]

To follow up on the topic of costs (specifically as influenced by Obamacare), here's an interesting read:

Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman's most famous book was entitled Free To Choose, a treatise on the centrality of choice to a free economy. ACA militates against choice. The individual mandate is not just a constitutional issue, it is fundamentally an economic issue. The coercive mandate explains why the law is unpopular two years after passage, and why politicians who passed it are not using it as the centerpiece of their campaign.

Link>>>>>>>http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/03/29/the_economic_costs_of_obamacare_99591.html