Supreme Court health care arguments under way

MoSurveyor · Mar 28, 2012

buck said:
Then why bother bringing up which party brought up the idea? Because you care, as long as it supports your conclusion.

Some members on both sides of the debate have swapped their position. Bringing up one, while thinking the other is unimportant - results in you comping off as a political hack.

Here's the post you originally responded to, do you see ANY mention of political party in there?

In medical emergencies time is crucial.

At death there's plenty of time to decide what your finances are so that a rational decision on whether you get the metal or pine coffin and a marble or limestone marker can be made. Should we wait a day or two after an accident to do the same for the injured so we can figure out if they get the bandage or the boot?

I'm not the hack, you are.

I don't give a rats ass which party supports what I think is right and if we're handing out free opinions around here then IMO that's 99.99% of what's wrong in America right now. Too damn many idiots blindly following the Big D or Big R and forgetting the real issues and the real people those issues are discussing. The ****ing two-party nightmare makes me sick to my stomach and, quite frankly, people trying to push me into a D or R box make me puke. You seem to be one of them.

Neomalthusian · Mar 28, 2012

Boo Radley said:
I would say it does matter. Right now there is little oversight and no certainty that the price hikes are equal to the cost.

And forced is an odd word.

No it's not, it's just unflattering to legislation that forces citizens to do something.

I think we can be specific (and still not be a death panel). And we will pay that cost one way or another. Seems prudent, just like with fire, that we plan for that.

Again, if the intended outcome to provide whatever medical care any person needs throughout their life, regardless of cost or ability to pay, you need to force anyone who has any money left to pay.

No. We've merely agreed collectively to tackle that area of concern and solve that problem.

It's too bad more than half the country doesn't understand that this "solution" directly and immediately worsens the problem.

danarhea · Mar 28, 2012

Erod said:
What is scary beyond imagination is that the entire bill will be decided by one man.

The framers intended the Supreme Court to be an unbiased third party, yet we have one justice who basically wrote the damn thing, another who considers our constitution inferior to that of South Africa, that will be voting on this.

The bill is illegal, plain and simple. Liberals can hate the Constitution to its core, but it was written solely to protect our liberties from the exact likes of you.

Our second Civil War will be fought over these very issues in short order, I'm sad to say.

Are you advocating violence?

buck · Mar 28, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Here's the post you originally responded to, do you see ANY mention of political party in there?
I'm not the hack, you are.

You do realize that there were at least two posters claiming that this was a republican idea? Somehow, I responded to your post, when I obviously meant to respond to one of the posters related to my response. Surely you realized that my response doesn't make any sense in relation to what you said and it was almost certainly meant for someone else. Or did you really not have anny clue?

My PC has been acting up, so I have to take a few extra steps to post here - which is how my mistake occured.

Billy the Kid · Mar 28, 2012

danarhea said:
They thought they did when the case was before the DC Appellate Court too, and the same kinds of arguments were made by those judges that are being made at SCOTUS. In the end, it was Conservative judge and Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman who cast the deciding vote upholding Obamacare.

Frankly, this could go either way, and if Kennedy takes the position that uninsured people seeking medical treatment in emergency rooms constitutes the initiation of commerce by them, then Obamacare gets upheld. The thinking is that, if you engage in commerce, then you MUST pay for what you purchase, rather than steal it. And make no doubt about it - When the uninsured go into the emergency room for treatment, they ARE purchasing a service, since they do receive a bill afterwards. Therefore, they are engaging in commerce. I cannot make any kind of prediction except that, if Kennedy makes this assumption, he may even pull Chief Justice Roberts to the side of upholding Obamacare too, making it a 6-3 decision. But that is a mighty BIG if.

So what will be the outcome? I haven't a freakin' clue. LOL.

Totally agree. I read that page and the other add on pages and it seems the legal eagles sitting ringside don't have a clue either.

Arbo · Mar 28, 2012

danarhea said:
They thought they did when the case was before the DC Appellate Court too, and the same kinds of arguments were made by those judges that are being made at SCOTUS. In the end, it was Conservative judge and Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman who cast the deciding vote upholding Obamacare.

Frankly, this could go either way, and if Kennedy takes the position that uninsured people seeking medical treatment in emergency rooms constitutes the initiation of commerce by them, then Obamacare gets upheld. The thinking is that, if you engage in commerce, then you MUST pay for what you purchase, rather than steal it. And make no doubt about it - When the uninsured go into the emergency room for treatment, they ARE purchasing a service, since they do receive a bill afterwards. Therefore, they are engaging in commerce. I cannot make any kind of prediction except that, if Kennedy makes this assumption, he may even pull Chief Justice Roberts to the side of upholding Obamacare too, making it a 6-3 decision. But that is a mighty BIG if.

So what will be the outcome? I haven't a freakin' clue. LOL.

It is true that nobody knows which way they will decide. It is pretty pathetic as it seems pretty damn clear cut. But goverment has a history of overstepping their constitutional authority, heck even the founders did it.

Billy the Kid · Mar 28, 2012

Erod said:
What is scary beyond imagination is that the entire bill will be decided by one man.

The framers intended the Supreme Court to be an unbiased third party, yet we have one justice who basically wrote the damn thing, another who considers our constitution inferior to that of South Africa, that will be voting on this.

The bill is illegal, plain and simple. Liberals can hate the Constitution to its core, but it was written solely to protect our liberties from the exact likes of you.

Our second Civil War will be fought over these very issues in short order, I'm sad to say.

Yup, that's the way the Supremes roll. I'm sure the framers didn't think the US or the Constitution would last as long as we/it have, but we have and we'll make it through this too.

iguanaman · Mar 28, 2012

Ontologuy said:
Yes, if the individual mandate is rejected, Obamcare loses its ability to "attract" customers to "Fed Cross" in sufficient numbers to adequately fund everyone's medical procedures, thereby making approval of procedures funded by the government insurance carrier much more dfficult to obtain than privately and at least equally as expensive regarding deductible and co-pay.

Without the individual mandate, all we (mostly) do is just add another medical insurance carrier to the list, a government-run medical insurance carrier.

Don't forget that pre-existing conditions will also be reinstated without the mandate
So insurance companies can continue paying big bucks to the people who's sole job is denying coverage to sick people. Aren't you glad so much of your premiums go to those important people?

Boo Radley · Mar 28, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
No it's not, it's just unflattering to legislation that forces citizens to do something.

On that I disagree. There is virtually no legislation that is pasted that someone doesn't object to. So, we are always forced, if we use your view as the guiding element, to do something. But this is a representative government, and I don't think force is the proper word.

Again, if the intended outcome to provide whatever medical care any person needs throughout their life, regardless of cost or ability to pay, you need to force anyone who has any money left to pay.

Minimal needed care. And we really can't spend much more than we are already. Remember, we're paying for it now. And in a very loose and ad hoc way. We would just be putting some method to that paying.

It's too bad more than half the country doesn't understand that this "solution" directly and immediately worsens the problem.

Not sure that it does. But I certainly agree it is not the best solution. I'm not sure we can get worse than we are without reform. That said, I would prefer that our elected representatives went to work to improve rather than court battles to take us back to nothing done.

MoSurveyor · Mar 28, 2012

buck said:
You do realize that there were at least two posters claiming that this was a republican idea? Somehow, I responded to your post, when I obviously meant to respond to one of the posters related to my response. Surely you realized that my response doesn't make any sense in relation to what you said and it was almost certainly meant for someone else. Or did you really not have anny clue?

My PC has been acting up, so I have to take a few extra steps to post here - which is how my mistake occured.

I assumed you made the same dumbass mistake I've seen a dozen times on here. I take a position and somebody's pea-brain interprets it as a declaration of overall political intent. You're not the first, you probably won't be the last - and I'll lay into the next one just like I did you.

BTW: UHC was a Republican idea first introduced by Tricky Dicky a long time ago. We discussed him (though not the UHC issue) in Current Events class.

Neomalthusian · Mar 28, 2012

iguanaman said:
Don't forget that pre-existing conditions will also be reinstated without the mandate So insurance companies can continue paying big bucks to the people who's sole job is denying coverage to sick people. Aren't you glad so much of your premiums go to those important people?

Covering folks with pre-existing conditions isn't insuring them, it's agreeing to directly pay the bills they're incurring. Having government force companies to act irrationally like this is not insurance--it's welfare.

Harshaw · Mar 28, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I assumed you made the same dumbass mistake I've seen a dozen times on here. I take a position and somebody's pea-brain interprets it as a declaration of overall political intent.

You've done that to me, dude. Elsewhere, and in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...re-arguments-under-way-31.html#post1060340027

iguanaman · Mar 28, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
And if it doesn't we should let 'em rot in the gutters. A few weeks of that and people will understand the issue much better.

Ahh the idealists, how quaint. You do know that in reality we will not change one tiny bit when it comes to treating people in Emergency rooms. So if it doens't pass you WILL continue to pay for all those unisured gaming the system, more an more EVERY year.

Harshaw · Mar 28, 2012

Boo Radley said:
No, it is the same argument. Like I said, you really did not understand it. But instead of asking questions, you leap to the insult.

And yes, they are an identifiable group. The insured or not required to get insurance as they are insured.

And we do have statistics that show us as a group they do show up injured and ill and do not have the means to pay for it. And don't pay for it. It isn't like we don't have the problem right before us right now. So, effectively it is being done right now. I have links above showing just that.

And actually the uninsured do include people who work and are capable and who still cannot afford the bills they incur. We have to have some method of dealing with this. Like has been repeated, the public option would have been better and more effective. And a single payer system even more effective than the public option. But the uninsured are right now being treated, and passing that cost on to us.

:roll:

Constantly repeating yourself doesn't mean it's not spaghetti.

Boo Radley · Mar 28, 2012

Harshaw said:
:roll:

Constantly repeating yourself doesn't mean it's not spaghetti.

Well, one could say the same to you. But then, one would be as non-responsive as you.

Neomalthusian · Mar 28, 2012

Boo Radley said:
On that I disagree. There is virtually no legislation that is pasted that someone doesn't object to. So, we are always forced, if we use your view as the guiding element, to do something. But this is a representative government, and I don't think force is the proper word.

It's not a tax, and Congress isn't collecting it, so force is the word.

Minimal needed care.

Still virtually limitless

And we really can't spend much more than we are already.

Are you kidding me?

Remember, we're paying for it now. And in a very loose and ad hoc way. We would just be putting some method to that paying.

But the problem is we can't afford these high costs at all. Using a different credit card doesn't resolve the problem of your expenditures being too high.

Not sure that it does. But I certainly agree it is not the best solution. I'm not sure we can get worse than we are without reform.

"Any reform is better than no reform" is a dangerous mistake. This "reform" forces citizens to buy a monopoly's product costs that are spiraling out of control. That is beyond unfair, and it's most unfair to those who can just barely scrape enough together to keep forking it over to these PRIVATE companies.

You need to be sure that it does make it worse. There's no question.

AdamT · Mar 28, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Thanks for the compliment. Were you even born in '93 when this came up previously? I was. And I do remember.

Uh yeah, I remember the year pretty well. I actually had a class in constitutional law that year, so I'm pretty sure it would have come up. But it didn't.

iguanaman · Mar 28, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
Covering folks with pre-existing conditions isn't insuring them, it's agreeing to directly pay the bills they're incurring. Having government force companies to act irrationally like this is not insurance--it's welfare.

Ha, ha, you crack me up. Everybody has some pre-existing condition and ins. companies often use any little illness you might have forgotten to deny coverage for major illness that was not pre-existing.
It is racket they use to get rid of sick people and increase profit.
The companies have AGREED to eliminate this scam in return for a mandate to reqire all to be insured. It's a fair bargain and one that will save 1000's from bankruptcy.

MoSurveyor · Mar 28, 2012

Harshaw said:
You've done that to me, dude. Elsewhere, and in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...re-arguments-under-way-31.html#post1060340027

I'll even repeat my final post here:

You must be a politician or a lawyer. I didn't realize you were arguing a point of a point of a point.

Minuscule crap is just that, crap - have fun.

Made my remarks, showed why I believed those remarks.

Made my comment on that sort of posting. and finished with "have fun. eace".

Did I say or imply you were a D or R or C or L? Did I try to put you in a political box?
If you take objection to being called a lawyer or politician then I will apologize - unless you really are or were one?

Erod · Mar 28, 2012

danarhea said:
Are you advocating violence?

Absolutely not. I'm just coming to terms with its inevitably.

The swath of differences between the two sides is becoming so massive - combined with the tipping-point debt crisis and virtually permanent unemployment quagmire - that something's got to give.

iguanaman · Mar 28, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
It's not a tax, and Congress isn't collecting it, so force is the word.

Still virtually limitless

Are you kidding me?

But the problem is we can't afford these high costs at all. Using a different credit card doesn't resolve the problem of your expenditures being too high.

"Any reform is better than no reform" is a dangerous mistake. This "reform" forces citizens to buy a monopoly's product costs that are spiraling out of control. That is beyond unfair, and it's most unfair to those who can just barely scrape enough together to keep forking it over to these PRIVATE companies.

You need to be sure that it does make it worse. There's no question.

At least there are limits on the monopoly with HC reform. 80% of premiums will be required to got to health care PROVIDERS leaving 20% for those that do nothing but cut checks. It's not perfect but it's better than them pocketing 35% or more profit for just being middlemen.

MoSurveyor · Mar 28, 2012

iguanaman said:
Ahh the idealists, how quaint. You do know that in reality we will not change one tiny bit when it comes to treating people in Emergency rooms. So if it doens't pass you WILL continue to pay for all those unisured gaming the system, more an more EVERY year.

Oh, I know all too well. I remember a time when we didn't automatically treat people. I had a wreck when I was 19 and was kinda' out of it, couldn't tell them if I had insurance or not (I did). They took me to County - basically the "Welfare Hospital" around here. Since it was just a sprang I didn't bother to go somewhere else but that was the default ambulance response at that time, no insurance? You go to County.

Boo Radley said:
Well, one could say the same to you. But then, one would be as non-responsive as you.

He often is that, isn't he? Or cryptic, which is just as bad sometimes. LOL!

Billy the Kid · Mar 28, 2012

Thought all on this thread might be interested in the last comments for the day.

SCOTUSblog

Will Medicaid Be Scarificed - Analysis

"Unless a closing oration by a top government lawyer stirs some real sympathy for the poor, the new health care law’s broad expansion of the Medicaid program that serves the needy may be sacrificed to a historic expression of judicial sympathy for states’ rights."

Harshaw · Mar 28, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Well, one could say the same to you. But then, one would be as non-responsive as you.

That's because it's already been covered. Declining to ride the merry-go-round one more time is hardly being "non-responsive." You just need a new argument.

Harshaw · Mar 28, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
He often is that, isn't he? Or cryptic, which is just as bad sometimes. LOL!

I say what I mean and mean what I say. If you want to go off on a tangent based on something I didn't say, then you'll quite often go down that road solo. This is your problem, not mine.

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

MoSurveyor

Neomalthusian

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

buck

Billy the Kid

Arbo

Billy the Kid

iguanaman

Boo Radley

MoSurveyor

Neomalthusian

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

iguanaman

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Boo Radley

Neomalthusian

AdamT

iguanaman

MoSurveyor

Erod

iguanaman

MoSurveyor

Billy the Kid

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency