B-Man Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) [ Michael Carvin Instructs the Court Carvin distinguishes Wickard v. Filburn. Oh, but lets be careful about what they were regulating in Wickard, Justice Ginsburg. What they were regulating was the supply of wheat. It didnt in any way imply that they could require every American to go out and buy wheat. Carvin destroys the necessary and proper argument for the mandate. Justice Ginsburg suggests that Obamacares insurance regulation cant possibly work without the mandate, and Carvin replies, It depends what you mean by work. Itll work just fine in ensuring that no sick people are discriminated against. The mandate isnt necessary to enforce that regulation or to keep it from being circumvented. Its necessary only to ameliorate a side-effect of the regulation. We, Congress, have driven up the health insurance premiums, and since weve created that problem, this somehow gives us authority that we wouldnt otherwise have. That cant possibly be right. Carvin explains the difference between the mandate and a tax credit. Here hes responding to Justice Sotomayor: The difference is that the taxpayer is not given a choice. Its the difference between banning cigarettes and saying Im going to enforce that legal ban through a $5 a pack penalty, and saying, look, if you want to sell cigarettes, fine; Im going to charge you a tax of $5 a pack. Justice Breyer then says he agrees with Carvin. 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 Obamacares mandate is different. Its not about keeping young, healthy people from shifting costs TO others. In that case, you might require them to buy catastrophic coverage. Its about shifting costs TO those people......... Thats why the mandate actually prohibits the purchase of catastrophic coverage. Ramesh Ponnuru . Edited March 28, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 all of these calculations become much simpler if cost shifting to subsidize uninsured care is taken out of the equation. this was actually discussed by the supremes. someone (kagan?) mentioned a number of about $800/year that patients with insurance pay extra to cover this cost shifting. Keep posting to reinforce the truism. Shifting the cost of covering the uninsured to the insured is doing nothing to the ACTUAL cost of providing that care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well I think the idea is force those people into the system. And I thought the number they were going with was $1000 not $800 but could be wrong. Were simply asking each American to pay for their care, and we have decided in this Nation that third party payors are going to be the option for overage and payment.... evrybody has to hold coverage there just is no other way around it, unless, we are willing to turn away people who were adiment about not paying their share... and I am fine wiht that, but they always come back begging when the disease sets in... America is unique in many way that there are people who truly will live and die by their choices.... I commend them for that, but there is no changing minds when you get sick... if you pay, you get care... or if you don't/can't, tough luck hope you have a burial plot picked out. If we are going to make heathcare a market driven product and service, lets actually do just that and cut off the non-partcipators. Keep posting to reinforce the truism. Shifting the cost of covering the uninsured to the insured is doing nothing to the ACTUAL cost of providing that care. it does not affect the Unit of Service Cost for said procedure/service, but it does have to get covered. if you get no State or Federal Monies to offset, it get allocated to every department in indirect cost and higher facility fees..... we had to cover 150M last year, it got shifted somewhere, and out charge on most items went up as usual by 7% again this year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Were simply asking each American to pay for their care, and we have decided in this Nation that third party payors are going to be the option for overage and payment.... evrybody has to hold coverage there just is no other way around it, unless, we are willing to turn away people who were adiment about not paying their share... and I am fine wiht that, but they always come back begging when the disease sets in... America is unique in many way that there are people who truly will live and die by their choices.... I commend them for that, but there is no changing minds when you get sick... if you pay, you get care... or if you don't/can't, tough luck hope you have a burial plot picked out. If we are going to make heathcare a market driven product and service, lets actually do just that and cut off the non-partcipators. it does not affect the Unit of Service Cost for said procedure/service, but it does have to get covered. if you get no State or Federal Monies to offset, it get allocated to every department in indirect cost and higher facility fees..... we had to cover 150M last year, it got shifted somewhere, and out charge on most items went up as usual by 7% again this year.... Or send the non-participents a bill for their treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Were simply asking each American to pay for their care, and we have decided in this Nation that third party payors are going to be the option for overage and payment.... evrybody has to hold coverage there just is no other way around it, unless, we are willing to turn away people who were adiment about not paying their share... and I am fine wiht that, but they always come back begging when the disease sets in... America is unique in many way that there are people who truly will live and die by their choices.... I commend them for that, but there is no changing minds when you get sick... if you pay, you get care... or if you don't/can't, tough luck hope you have a burial plot picked out. If we are going to make heathcare a market driven product and service, lets actually do just that and cut off the non-partcipators. it does not affect the Unit of Service Cost for said procedure/service, but it does have to get covered. if you get no State or Federal Monies to offset, it get allocated to every department in indirect cost and higher facility fees..... we had to cover 150M last year, it got shifted somewhere, and out charge on most items went up as usual by 7% again this year.... Hippocratic Oath is older than our constitution....jus sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's a difficult job and they certainly may be guilty in "stretching" logic more in one direction than another to reach a determination more in line with their view of the constitution. But not to support party politics. This is a huge deal in terms of commerce clause jurisprudence. It is something they will all take seriously this case will be around long after Obama and the current Repubs. Do you still hold this conviction after today's questioning? I don't have an institutional memory of every SCOTUS proceeding, but wouldn't you say that Sotomayor's comments cross the line between Judicial & Legislative? It's not the Supremes' job to determine what happens to the law if key portions of it are unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then back to Congress it goes. End of story. it does not affect the Unit of Service Cost for said procedure/service, but it does have to get covered. if you get no State or Federal Monies to offset, it get allocated to every department in indirect cost and higher facility fees..... we had to cover 150M last year, it got shifted somewhere, and out charge on most items went up as usual by 7% again this year.... Again, you are arguing reimbursement, while I'm taking about the cost of providing the service. Two different, separate things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Do you still hold this conviction after today's questioning? I don't have an institutional memory of every SCOTUS proceeding, but wouldn't you say that Sotomayor's comments cross the line between Judicial & Legislative? It's not the Supremes' job to determine what happens to the law if key portions of it are unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then back to Congress it goes. End of story. Good. I'm not the only one that thought that about Sotomayor... Hippocratic Oath is older than our constitution....jus sayin' Oh...okay. I guess it has legal precedence then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Do you still hold this conviction after today's questioning? I don't have an institutional memory of every SCOTUS proceeding, but wouldn't you say that Sotomayor's comments cross the line between Judicial & Legislative? It's not the Supremes' job to determine what happens to the law if key portions of it are unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then back to Congress it goes. End of story. Not sure what you are talking about and I haven't watched today's arguments yet. Are you talking about generally deciding severability? That would be something courts routinely do when striking down portions of more general schemes is to decide if the entire thing is void or if just that portion is...or are you talking about something more specific that you think she did that was crossing the line? If so do tell I'll look for it when I watch and let ya know what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) [ How Obamacare Derailed the Economic Recovery FTA: Assuming that the $800 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus, would work the magic promised by his economics team, Mr. Obama set off on his quest to guarantee healthcare for every American. The resulting food fight over the legislation the ugly parceling out of favors in return for votes and lies told to justify passage -- permanently damaged President Obamas reputation, divided a country desperate to heal, and distracted the White House from further efforts to build employment. It was a terrible decision, and the country continues to pay for it. It was, ironically, a decision made by a president eager to secure his legacy. Undaunted by the abject failure of Hilary Clinton to win support for universal healthcare, Mr. Obama took up the quest with enthusiasm. Just as he admitted to excessive optimism about bringing peace to the Middle East in an interview in Time Magazine, dubbing that effort really hard, Mr. Obama naively staked his presidency on healthcare reform. Heres a shocker: remaking 17percent of the economy is also really hard. Whether or not the Supreme Court upholds the governments mandate that every American must purchase healthcare insurance, Obamacare is a failure. In spite of innumerable speeches, editorials and presentations on the merits of the law, Americans dont like it. Though most people recognize that ever-rising healthcare outlays threaten our nations fiscal integrity, they cant imagine that granting free health services to 30 million Americans will solve the problem. They see the Affordable Care Act as a massive expansion of government activity that will not make healthcare affordable but that will instead drive costs higher as millions more receive a blank check for medical services. Moreover, many Americans think Obamacare failed to tackle many of the actual causes of excess healthcare spending the lawsuits that mandate unnecessary procedures by vulnerable doctors (the CBO estimates capping malpractice awards would save taxpayers $54 billion over ten years), the fact that so many patients have no skin in the game and therefore undertake treatments oblivious to any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, and often wasteful reimbursement procedures. The legislation patently failed to bend the curve on Medicare and Medicaid outlays, which is why Congress continues to argue over how to fix those programs dismal future. With all these shortcomings, Obamacares biggest fault is that it distracted officials from sustained efforts to reboot our economy. The Fiscal Times . Edited March 28, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Or send the non-participents a bill for their treatment. We end up collecting very little, most of it ends up in bad debt and collection... now if we could lien Tax Returns, Homes, Assets, Wage Garnishment, then you're talking! Hippocratic Oath is older than our constitution....jus sayin' The exact reason market economics and markets principles will not work efficiently in Healthcare.... If I don't pay my car loans, the bank gets the car. If I don't pay my Medical Bills, meh, there are options to get out of that Big Difference Do you still hold this conviction after today's questioning? I don't have an institutional memory of every SCOTUS proceeding, but wouldn't you say that Sotomayor's comments cross the line between Judicial & Legislative? It's not the Supremes' job to determine what happens to the law if key portions of it are unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then back to Congress it goes. End of story. Again, you are arguing reimbursement, while I'm taking about the cost of providing the service. Two different, separate things. I adressed that, we know our Unit Cost of services we provide. As I said before, the cost of providing a MRI is pretty straightforward and we know the number on it. But as you know, when it is coded and gross charges are billed out, it includes all those non-test related costs that are an expense of running that MRI, or that department. [ The Fiscal Times . The intention was not to dole out free care to 30M people.... many of those people are uninsured because no company will underwrite them... they are not asking for a hand out, just particpiation in the market... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Not sure what you are talking about and I haven't watched today's arguments yet. Are you talking about generally deciding severability? That would be something courts routinely do when striking down portions of more general schemes is to decide if the entire thing is void or if just that portion is...or are you talking about something more specific that you think she did that was crossing the line? If so do tell I'll look for it when I watch and let ya know what I think. Take a look at the transcript that's available. The commentary makes it sound as if they're trying to salvage the law, as it's looking like the insurance mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. So, while jutsices may have decided on severability of other laws where the unconstitutional portion did not materially affect the remaining parts of the law, the "insurance" mandate is the only thing that makes Obamacare work (in Washington DC accounting terms, not any reasonable financial, actuarial or accounting terms). Thus, by trying to salvage a law in which a critical component is unconstitutional is very much legislating from the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Take a look at the transcript that's available. The commentary makes it sound as if they're trying to salvage the law, as it's looking like the insurance mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. So, while jutsices may have decided on severability of other laws where the unconstitutional portion did not materially affect the remaining parts of the law, the "insurance" mandate is the only thing that makes Obamacare work (in Washington DC accounting terms, not any reasonable financial, actuarial or accounting terms). Thus, by trying to salvage a law in which a critical component is unconstitutional is very much legislating from the bench. Well I was tied up all morning. I'll have some time in the afternoon and definitely later tonight to listen to the entire thing. I guess it could be a fuzzy line depending on what I hear but all in all a judge trying to save as much of a bill that passed the other two branches (the democratically accountable ones) doesn't seem improper. If the heart of the bill is truly ripped out via the court finding it unconstitutional and as a result it doesn't work by it's own scheme then obviously it would be improper for a judge to keep it alive for purely political reasons...then again people don't all agree what would be more politically beneficial for Obama (strike down or upheld)....any way I'll have to watch myself. My gut instincts are that I probably am not going to have a problem with her questions unless she's literally making ridiculous arguments b/c from what I know there is significant reform beyond the mandate/no denial for preexisting injuries...those two are clearly tied together though but the rest of the Bill is at least open to debate. Also, generally speaking once again I want to say people read too much into the oral arguments. Despite the line of questioning...there is another principle that may well swing Kennedy and/or Roberts to uphold the mandate and that's the very basic separation of powers doctrine. If it's a close call (and most would agree that this is) then you must fall back on the presumption that congress passed a constitutional act. They are democratically accountable and Marbury v. Madison does not say that the supreme court is the sole decider of what is constitutional it merely created the doctrine of judicial review...most early visions of the united states put forth by the Framers envisioned a world where the 3 branches in unison would decide questions of constitutionality. The proper role of the court in a situation like this must weigh heavy on the minds of all the justices and IMO the TRULY conservative thing to do here is to upheld by the slimmest of margins crediting congressional deference as the trump card that put it over the edge. Also, the political consequences and timing IMO could be considered. The court is allowed to factor in the consequences to the other branches it's rulings will have. Edited March 28, 2012 by dayman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Take a look at the transcript that's available. The commentary makes it sound as if they're trying to salvage the law, as it's looking like the insurance mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. So, while jutsices may have decided on severability of other laws where the unconstitutional portion did not materially affect the remaining parts of the law, the "insurance" mandate is the only thing that makes Obamacare work (in Washington DC accounting terms, not any reasonable financial, actuarial or accounting terms). Thus, by trying to salvage a law in which a critical component is unconstitutional is very much legislating from the bench. Disregarding the question of how Sontomayer and Kagan rewrite the law to salvage parts of it; how exactly do they end up salvaging part of a law that doesn't have a severability clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." What the bloody !@#$...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Have they decided to give that Georgetown Grad student free birth control yet? I'm waiting with bated breath here. And, anyone got her phone number? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." Yep, that pretty much nails it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 What the bloody !@#$...? It was part of the exchange she had with counsel in whether Feds would be coercing states into joining Medicaid even under uneconomic terms. To her, giving out Federal largesse is free money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." I'm just waiting for Birddog to tell us it can't be stupid because she said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts