DescentBB

As in strike down Obamacare. I was reading this interview with the solicitor general and I was struck by his reply"

"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rejecting-obam ... 16680.html

I'm just wondering if the SG has taken time to notice unelected judges like the 9th circuit, strike down duly legislated laws that were voted on and passed by the people, on a regular basis. Gay marriages being a case in point. Thoughts?

So if 95% of people want cannibalism, they can’t have it? How unfair is that!

That entire diatribe is all about associating “95% of Americans want it” with the health care law.

Obamacare is as far from the New Deal in substance and ideals as the North and South poles are on the earth. If the SG thinks Obamacare is saving us from big corporations and their influence, I've got a bridge to sell.............

Well it looks as though the case may hinge one Obamacare being a tax or a penalty. All along Obama and his minions have been saying Obamacare is not a tax. If that is the case then Obama care will be defeated. The SG will then try to say it was really a tax and thus under congress's purview to enact it. I have a feeling based on the oft touted term "not a tax" will be a death-knell. As one SCOTUS jurists told one of the presenting atty.'s, "Today you present the bill as a penalty, tomorrow you will present it as a tax." If Obamacare is a tax then the high court cannot hear the case until the law actually goes into effect...leaving Romney, when he wins, able to strike it down as no determination has been heard. The high court can hear the case if Obamacare is presented as a penalty. So the SG will present it as a penalty first to get the court to accept the case, then argue the penalty is really a tax. With 4 Liberal justice's who would side with anything Obama presents, Obama and friends think they have a good chance on getting at least one conservative to side with them.

Now before you liberals here get all moist in the proper regions, let me remind you if Obamacare is deemed constitutional, this will open the door for the feds to enact all sorts of "penalties" that will affect your everyday life.

Spidey wrote:So if 95% of people want cannibalism, they can’t have it? How unfair is that!

That entire diatribe is all about associating “95% of Americans want it” with the health care law.

It's about associating Obamacare with the will of the people VS big government. About as ****ing backwards as everything else these folks are coming up with.

That too...

you know, of course, that if the SCOTUS tosses this out(and, I hope they do), you will see, once and for all, a massive push by the 65%-plus of the American people who support Single Payer, and this time around, the Insurance companies be damned.
Since it is obvious that this House of Reps won't support it, the Dems can make it the selling point to sweep into control of the House, beef up or maintain the Senate, and finally, we'll join the rest of the civilized world and see our per capita healthcare costs plummet.

Perhaps Slick you should get current"

"Almost half of Americans oppose Obamacare, and only 36 percent support it, according to a new New York Times/CBS News poll shows."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obamacare-opp ... /id/433914

Or:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

Do try and stop trying to slick the crowd here. Only makes your posting's look tawdry.

woodchip wrote:Perhaps Slick you should get current"

"Almost half of Americans oppose Obamacare, and only 36 percent support it, according to a new New York Times/CBS News poll shows."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obamacare-opp ... /id/433914

yeesh! Here we go again......
please go back and quote where I wrote word one about what support The Healtcare Act had. I dare you. What I stated was that for years, in poll after poll, when the pros and cons of Single Payer(National health plan, cradle to grave Medicare, whatever variation, public or pooled private funding) are presented, over 65% of all citizens of this fair land support Single Payer. Why not?
it seems to result in a 30% reduction in percapita costs in every efficiently run system.

Do try and stop trying to slick the crowd here. Only makes your posting's look tawdry.

do tell.

Ummmm, Slickster, where in your previous post did you say anything about the last x number of years ?

I doubt if 65% of Americans would support anything…if you asked the question correctly.

woodchip wrote:Well it looks as though the case may hinge one Obamacare being a tax or a penalty.

That's kind of a Catch 22. It's not a "tax" until someone actually pays it, which won't happen until 2014.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well it looks as though the case may hinge one Obamacare being a tax or a penalty.

That's kind of a Catch 22. It's not a "tax" until someone actually pays it, which won't happen until 2014.

it's clearly NOT a tax, but written as to be a 'penalty', carrying no criminal charge for failure to comply, by the way.
Anyhow, today was interesting. I was thinking that the Court was leaning noticeably toward the 'strike the law' side, until I heard Kennedy's last remarks. He might just view healthcare as an exceptional, and thus regulable, type of interstate commerce. In that case, 5-4 to uphold.

callmeslick wrote:it's clearly NOT a tax, but written as to be a 'penalty', carrying no criminal charge for failure to comply, by the way.
Anyhow, today was interesting. I was thinking that the Court was leaning noticeably toward the 'strike the law' side, until I heard Kennedy's last remarks. He might just view healthcare as an exceptional, and thus regulable, type of interstate commerce. In that case, 5-4 to uphold.

It's a little murky, especially the way the SG is arguing his case.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews ... it-be.html

But this all may be a moot point. I've been kind of half listening to the audio that was recorded earlier in the day. It seems the SG is doing a pretty lousy job of defending the mandate, and I'm not even a lawyer. The more liberal justices are even trying to prompt the poor guy to give them some coherent reasons for them to uphold this part of the law.

Well it may very well be that Sotomayor is indeed a wise Latina:

"Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point."

I'm wondering if Obama is thinking, "Why did I pick this broad".

callmeslick wrote: What I stated was that for years, in poll after poll, when the pros and cons of Single Payer(National health plan, cradle to grave Medicare, whatever variation, public or pooled private funding) are presented, over 65% of all citizens of this fair land support Single Payer.

references please.

it seems to result in a 30% reduction in percapita costs in every efficiently run system.

references, please.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _insurance

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_system

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _57_oppose

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well it looks as though the case may hinge one Obamacare being a tax or a penalty.

That's kind of a Catch 22. It's not a "tax" until someone actually pays it, which won't happen until 2014.

it's clearly NOT a tax, but written as to be a 'penalty', carrying no criminal charge for failure to comply, by the way.
Anyhow, today was interesting. I was thinking that the Court was leaning noticeably toward the 'strike the law' side, until I heard Kennedy's last remarks. He might just view healthcare as an exceptional, and thus regulable, type of interstate commerce. In that case, 5-4 to uphold.

Looks like what you heard and think Slick, is irrelevant. The way the law was written, made any one item non-separable. So if one part is found unconstitutional the whole bill is now junk. Funny how all those smart liberal folks like Pelosi, Reid and the smartest Harvard law graduate Obama didn't see the possibility of this happening and stupidly signed off on it as written. Too bad the then leader of the House had to wait for the bill to be signed before she could be arsed to find out what was in it. So what would have been Obama's crowning achievement, now will be nothing more than a crash and burn mark on the Supreme Courts front steps.

Now if you doubt me, Head spin Meister James Carville says this:

"(CNN) - While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.

"I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

If you ever wanted to bottle up the scent from a decomposing fish corpse and sell it as expensive perfume, just get a hold of Carville.

i agree with Carville, and how often do you all have to doubt Obama's acumen and be proven wrong? As one of the Justices pointed out, and the AG of Virginia concurred, a Single Payer plan would be COMPLETELY beyond challenge. If the Dems actually go out for 4 months after the decision and make the case for SP, it could be a massive boost in the fall election. I am about to head south for a few days of fishing and seafood, but will gladly provide the linkage when I get back next week, but the facts are this: Single payer plans with very generous coverage(ex. Japan) result in a per capita healthcare expense of more than 30% less than the US pays, and everyone is covered. No bankruptcy over a lost job and illness, no denials for pre-existing conditions, no being tied to a job just to keep healthcare for your family, and no unforseen expense for businesses. The taxation needed would be small for most of us, compared to current premium payments. It should be a far easier sell, but as stated above, the Dems have, at times, done a piss-poor job of doing so.

Yea, nice…use Japan as the example, no a person will not go bankrupt but the entire government may end up on the brink…

And in Japan, doctors work for beans…yea that will work here.

LOL

callmeslick wrote:i agree with Carville, and how often do you all have to doubt Obama's acumen and be proven wrong? As one of the Justices pointed out, and the AG of Virginia concurred, a Single Payer plan would be COMPLETELY beyond challenge. If the Dems actually go out for 4 months after the decision and make the case for SP, it could be a massive boost in the fall election. I am about to head south for a few days of fishing and seafood, but will gladly provide the linkage when I get back next week, but the facts are this: Single payer plans with very generous coverage(ex. Japan) result in a per capita healthcare expense of more than 30% less than the US pays, and everyone is covered. No bankruptcy over a lost job and illness, no denials for pre-existing conditions, no being tied to a job just to keep healthcare for your family, and no unforseen expense for businesses. The taxation needed would be small for most of us, compared to current premium payments. It should be a far easier sell, but as stated above, the Dems have, at times, done a piss-poor job of doing so.

I'll be interested to see what you have, Slick. A quick Google search found me this -
http://www.economist.com/node/21528660

I'm willing to bet there a lot of perspectives on this issue. Today I was hearing about how the flip side of OCare's failure would be a push to go single payer, essentially Medicare for all. Anecdotally, I know a few people in health care, and they keep telling me about how providers keep wanting to deal less and less with Medicare patients. What happens to care when fewer and fewer want to deliver it, and those willing to work for the lower pay are less and less skilled.

dissent wrote:What happens to care when fewer and fewer want to deliver it, and those willing to work for the lower pay are less and less skilled.

Bad is still better than nothing, which is what a lot of people have. Nothing. It's an interesting question, but I think the answer is to work toward changing our culture and attitudes toward personal health, professional health care, and how we can increase the quality of life for everyone overall. It might take a long time, but I believe things will sort themselves out.

I haven't been too happy with some parts of this Obamacare stuff. But I am happy someone has taken the initiative to work on something that's been broken for far too long. Now, there will always be a lot of disagreement about whether this is the right or wrong thing to do, but making any change is better than nothing, which is what he had before. Nothing. And if it turns out to be the wrong direction, then better solutions will be more obvious (if only through process of elimination).

Gotta take a chance.

vision wrote: Bad is still better than nothing, which is what a lot of people have.

That could be the lamest thing you have ever said vision. You approve of creating a health system where to have coverage for everyone, you don't mind reducing the quality of care to "Bad"?

vision wrote:Bad is still better than nothing, which is what a lot of people have.

HARDLY, bad could be worse than nothing, a system of bad or incompetent DR's could cause further harm or even death by a miss-diagnosis or improper treatment or surgery.
hell have you listened lately to the side effects for some of the drugs they have out today, you get a skin rash and the Dr prescribes you a drug that side effects inc death

Few people, in government or the medical system, in any of these discussions about the merits of Obamacare, has pointed out the real problem with America's Healthcare System and why Obamacare does NOT address or solve that dirty little unmentionable, cost. What the real issue is that people want infinite health care, to hell with the cost or who pays for it. They don't want to talk about the down side of that infinite need, which is how do we ration something which is a finite resource.

By the way, the free market is a "solution" and a legitimate way to ration a product in short supply. It's just like any other product we have to buy, people can only buy what they can afford. The question is, is that a fair way to ration something so important to society?

woodchip wrote:You approve of creating a health system where to have coverage for everyone, you don't mind reducing the quality of care to "Bad"?

CUDA wrote:[HARDLY, bad could be worse than nothing, a system of bad or incompetent DR's could cause further harm or even death by a miss-diagnosis or improper treatment or surgery.

We're not going to replace doctors with witchcraft. The medical field isn't going to collapse. There will still be good doctors and good health care available to the people who can afford "better." So don't be a Chicken Little. Even if medical mistakes increase, the benefits of a healthier, more confident population will do wonders for our society, our economy.

You forget one of the main reasons we have a heath care crisis is because people lack access to basic care. Problems with simple diagnosis and treatments aren't available and they often escalate to more serious, expensive, emergency treatments. Remember that kid who died of a toothache last year? That's totally embarrassing for "the greatest country on Earth." That kid would probably be alive if he had access to basic heath care, even if the chances of a mis-diagnosis increased.

The problem is that we haven't separated "basic care" from "end of life treatment". The first one we can afford and really don't need insurance for. It's only adding overhead, paperwork and raising costs. The market could do a whole lot better at providing and distributing quality, lower cost, basic care to people that need it. The latter is something very expensive and does fall under something that needs to be covered by insurance. This latter care is also what's driving up the horrendous costs to the whole system.

Say you own a car. You pay out of pocket for maintenance and care to keep it running. No one thinks that people need insurance for that. However, if the car is severely damaged in an accident for instance, that situation is where everyone thinks we need insurance coverage. Same thing with a house. You don't have insurance for having to paint or fix the roof, but you do have insurance for major natural disasters.

tunnelcat wrote:Say you own a car. You pay out of pocket for maintenance and care to keep it running. No one thinks that people need insurance for that. However, if the car is severely damaged in an accident for instance, that situation is where everyone thinks we need insurance coverage. Same thing with a house. You don't have insurance for having to paint or fix the roof, but you do have insurance for major natural disasters.

good points. too many people go to emergency rooms for a runny nose, with and without insurance. insurance in every other walk of our life if for a major event, not a hang-nail

What really gets me is just how much an inconsequential doctor's visit can cost, even with insurance. I had to see a doctor a week or two ago, and because we haven't hit whatever the deductible is for the year, I had to pay full-price. All of five minutes or so to check in with the doctor and get a prescription refill written up...and it costs a cool $100. I can't help but wonder how much of that the doctor sees, and if it's a decent percentage, how I can get in on that sort of racket.

Top Gun wrote:What really gets me is just how much an inconsequential doctor's visit can cost, even with insurance. I had to see a doctor a week or two ago, and because we haven't hit whatever the deductible is for the year, I had to pay full-price. All of five minutes or so to check in with the doctor and get a prescription refill written up...and it costs a cool $100. I can't help but wonder how much of that the doctor sees, and if it's a decent percentage, how I can get in on that sort of racket.

Consider yourself lucky, once I went to the doctor to schedule a test and it cost $350 just to talk for 3 minutes and wait for 20. (A month later the test cost an additional $2,400, and the results got me a 90 second explanation over the phone that boils down to "nothing can be done about it".)

So lately I have simply skipped going to the doctor for much of anything, including whatever I did to my rib while prying on plumbing a bit over a month ago. Why spend hundreds, or even thousands of dollars on an x-ray when I already know the answer to either case (broken or dislocated) would be "we can't do anything about it, you just have to wait for it to heal".

Oh and get this, my parents went to Costa Rica in January, partially for a vacation, but mostly to get some dental work done for barely a tenth of the price it would be here. And the dentist they went to in Costa Rica was an American!

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Say you own a car. You pay out of pocket for maintenance and care to keep it running. No one thinks that people need insurance for that. However, if the car is severely damaged in an accident for instance, that situation is where everyone thinks we need insurance coverage. Same thing with a house. You don't have insurance for having to paint or fix the roof, but you do have insurance for major natural disasters.

good points. too many people go to emergency rooms for a runny nose, with and without insurance. insurance in every other walk of our life if for a major event, not a hang-nail

Ah, but there is a slight flaw in my logic. No one is REQUIRED to own a car or a house, so as such, they don't HAVE to buy the corresponding required insurance. However, no one HAS the option to just not live, do they?

By the way, I don't think uninsured people are the main cause of our expensive health care. Sure, hospitals rack up costs because they HAVE to treat everyone that comes through the door and there IS a percentage that end up not paying. But like I said, the main reason for our high health care costs is due to end of life care in an aging population that's getting older and sicker with age related illnesses. Cancer treatments, organ transplants and joint replacements are all in high demand and other expensive diagnostic procedures like MRI's and CAT scans are being overused without thought to what this is costing EVERYONE. And we're ALL paying for it through higher insurance rates, on top of the 30% the insurance companies take off the top. Most doctors will treat before thinking about how we will pay for those treatments and most people do no want to discuss or even think about money when they're sick or dying. And most normal people want to spend whatever it takes to get even a small amount of life extension. How we deal with those issues will be what finally gets us on the road to solving our health care problem.

However, no one HAS the option to just not live, do they?

In Oregon they do

That in part describes why health “insurance” is so expensive…but why is health “care” so expensive?

Yeah, that's the real kicker. For another relevant example, my dentist's office has a fully-digital X-ray camera, so they can see the images almost immediately after they're taken, as opposed to having to go through the process to develop film. From a practical standpoint, there's no real cost to taking the X-rays beyond the electricity required to power the camera. Yet if you look at your bill, you'll see a decidedly non-trivial amount charged there (albeit mostly covered by insurance). I understand that medical equipment can cost a great deal to purchase or maintain, especially when you're talking about a big MRI machine, but my dentist's office has had these cameras for years, well past the point where they would have had them paid for. So then why does a simple routine X-ray still cost so much?

I can answer that for you, though I could only speculate on whether you were being over-charged or not. The reason is that they will have to buy another machine someday (or perhaps they only lease the one they have?). If the machine will only last X years, or will be obsolete by then, they are looking at another huge investment. You have to realize also that the digital x-ray camera your dentist uses is not in the same market as your consumer digital camera. There are all kinds of reasons why you can buy a digital camera cheaply, and these reasons just don't exists once you're in the market for a small-niche, specialty camera for business use. That camera probably cost 10x what you would think, is my guess.

Think about it. If you had a business, and you needed equipment (no equipment--no matter how made in Germany--lasts forever ), could you justify phasing out the cost of the equipment once it is technically paid off? Now take that thought and factor in competition, which not only forces you into a position of not being able to charge like you might want to in order to pay off the equipment, but also--if we're talking about a separate charge for the photos, as I understand we are--forces you to charge less than you might for other services, giving you an incentive to at least recoup some of that in other ways--the photo charge.

It's not as bleak as that sounds, IMO, it just means that from a business perspective there is never a reason NOT to charge for equipment usage.

Fine, that’s only one example…my brother showed me a bill from the hospital that had an aspirin listed as 35$ and a meter of common tubing as 150$

Also just for the hell of it, explain why a 10 minute out-patient procedure where the raw materials for the job cost a total of 450$ costs 12 grand?

(the answer is…the industry does not have to charge what the market will bear)

I believe you're absolutely correct. Hey! I have an idea! Let's hook that sucker up to the apparently limitless National Debt! The Atom Bomb was nothing... Welp, we can always bring in government regulation of healthcare to solve that problem once we've done creating it.

Do these sons of bitches all have stock in the medical industry or something?

CUDA wrote:

However, no one HAS the option to just not live, do they?

In Oregon they do

In Oregon, you have to have a doctor testify that you have only 6 months to live. And many doctors refuse or are reluctant even prescribe the "death with dignity" drugs out of personal reasons. One Corvallis doctor got in trouble for actually performing "euthanasia" in 1997. He is also my personal doctor and very reluctant to talk about it. I got the impression he would never, ever prescribe drugs to end a person's life in the future because of the wringer he was put through by the patient's family and the authorities.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 99,2544818

Spidey wrote:That in part describes why health “insurance” is so expensive…but why is health “care” so expensive?

Two core reasons:

1. Inefficiency of delivery--this part ties into the 'go to the Emergency Room' stuff discussed already. When trained trauma staff are treating minor wounds and flu symptoms, that is expensive expertise diverted. Also, the system fails to reward primary care docs anywhere near as well as specialists. Hence, a tendency to bump everything up to specialist care prematurely. Our system, tied into insurance compensation also prevents efficency, as the compensation is usually not based on outcome of treatment, but on number of patient visits.

2. Unrealistic public expectations--Far too many Americans EXPECT state-of-the art care(robotic surgery, cutting edge imaging and diagnostic testing), but few seem to realize how much that costs and fewer are willing to actually pay for it.

And the 800 pound gorilla in the room that distorts the market and causes increases to both health insurance and health care is the effect of governments (state and federal) and their mandates for coverage and service. These are the reasons why your aspirin costs $35. One of the main problems for cost control as an issue is that there are few true price signals, where supply and demand operate normally, in the health care or insurance marketplaces. Politicians just love this crap, because they can dump these mandates onto others, claim credit for doing something good for the people, leave others in the marketplaces to clean up the mess, and then whine and moan at election time about how bad all the other actors are in health care after the politicians did all these good things for you.