Tribalism: The Supreme Court Will Agree With Me, Larry Tribe, Because They Are Non-Partisan, Like Me! (Instalink!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: Instalink! Thanks, Professor Reynolds! And as I wrote this post, Althouse has written two more posts on Tribe’s piece, here and here.
Yesterday, it was Akhil Amar’s turn inside the barrel (metaphorically, Mr. Johnson). Today it is Laurence Tribe’s opportunity. As you may or may not know Tribe is a respected Professor of Law and is generally considered one of the giants of the profession. Still his op-ed in the New York Times, On Health Care, Justice Will Prevail is frankly wrong on numerous levels and deserving of a fisking. Whether I go easier on him than Amar is your call.
Tribe spends the first paragraph more or less saying people are making bets on how the court will rule on Obamacare, and then writes:
But the predictions of a partisan 5-4 split rest on a misunderstanding of the court and the Constitution. The constitutionality of the health care law is not one of those novel, one-off issues, like the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, that have at times created the impression of Supreme Court justices as political actors rather than legal analysts.
So he starts right off with the myth that Bush v. Gore was supposedly a one-off, a myth I already demolished, here. And bluntly the real reason why some on the left supposed that Bush v. Gore was political was the fact that it was George W. Bush v. Albert Gore and the upshot of that decision was that Bush became president. However they ruled, the Supreme Court was inevitably going to be accused of ruling based on political preference. Which is not to say that this impression was fair or right, only inevitable. Because it was the left’s ox that was Gored, the left is still convinced that Bush stole the election with the help of the Supreme Court.
It certainly doesn’t help that the left had long ago convinced itself that the text of the Constitution, or its original meaning as understood by the public at the founding, didn’t matter and had fully projected that attitude into their views of the most conservative members of the court. I remember being at Yale when Bush v. Gore came down and being one of the few voices to point out the hypocrisy of their complaints, saying (paraphrase):
What did you expect? This school has spent the last thirty years advocating that the courts should be nakedly political actors, that they should disregard the Constitution, disregard inconvenient precedent, disregard the will of the people and decide for themselves what was best for the little people. And now you are accusing them of what? Listening to you? You’re not angry that they might have ruled based on their political whims. You accept that as inevitable and even good. You’re just angry that you lost.
Bush v. Gore demonstrates that in our society we need one institution that is neutral; that is truly above politics; that just follows the law and that is it.
By the way, when you were watching the game last Sunday, how did you think the referees should have made their calls? Should they have neutrally applied the rules as written without regard to team preference? Or should they have liberally interpreted the rules so that the team they felt deserved to win would be more likely to win? Should they have written new rules as the game progressed, to deal with the changing mores of the NFL? Should they have rendered certain rules a nullity?
Just askin’.
Still his basic point is arguable. I won’t pretend to see into the mind of most of the justices. Breyer, Ginsberg and all the other liberals say that they believe in following the Constitution, only they have a radically different understanding of what the constitution means. We can be appropriately skeptical of those claims, but we can’t pretend to know they are full of it.
Oh, except in the case of Justice Kennedy. As I said when discussing another topic, Justice Kennedy is not nearly the principled interpreter of the constitution that he claims to be:
[Kennedy] joined Scalia’s opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, which was an intensely originalist decision, determining how the Second Amendment would have been understood at the time it was ratified. And this was no mere joinder for convenience; in oral argument, he talked about how the founders would have considered life without guns unthinkable. He put on at least an act of caring what the founders believed.
Then along came Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that case they were called on to determine whether the term “cruel and unusual punishment” included executing a person for forcibly raping a child. And with apologies for being this explicit, but the Defendant in that case, also coincidentally named Kennedy, had raped his eight year-old daughter so violently that it ruptured the wall between her vagina and her anus and she will never have children. Read the case and you will see that, to Justice Kennedy’s credit, he does nothing to excuse or diminish the cruelty of the act. So if Justice Kennedy was a principled follower of original intent this would be a no-brainer. At the time of the founding, we executed horse thieves. Killing a defendant like this scumbag is nothing compared to that.
But in fact (Justice) Kennedy declared it would be cruel and unusual to kill (Defendant) Kennedy for his crimes.
If you want my view of how Justice Kennedy’s mind works, go here, although I will warn you that I engage in a lot of coarse language there. I will say, bottom line, that Kennedy will have little trouble feeling confident that striking down Obamacare will not harm the Supreme Court as an institution – and his own policy preferences, particularly his support for the right of privacy, will leave him inclined to rule against it. [Big language warning on the last link.]
Anyway, Tribe goes on:
Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
And that is true as far as it goes. But at the same time the Supreme Court has struck down some laws as going too far, such as the Lopez and Morrison cases, involving the Gun-Free Schools Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets.
Um, wait, no. They have never ruled that a person’s economic “choice” was commerce. What they have ruled is that if your choice results in different activity, and that has a significant effect on interstate markets, then that can be regulated. Which is all the difference between pretending that this case has already been decided, and not.
By that standard, this law’s constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?
But we are not talking about regulating the health insurance industry. We are talking about regulating you sitting on your couch and not owning insurance. Anyway, he goes on to make the familiar argument that 1) the rule prohibiting discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is constitutional but 2) it will be a disaster if you don’t force people to purchase insurance. Fair enough, I have argued that before. But also I pointed out repeatedly, it’s not enough to say the mandate is necessary generally. Instead it has to be necessary and proper to bring into execution the powers granted in the Constitution, and things like the pre-existing condition rule can be executed just fine without the help of a mandate. The fact it is sorely needed to mitigate the bad effects of policies like the pre-existing condition rule, does not mean it is needed to carry the law into execution.
But to cover this logical hole, he makes a weird leap:
In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here[.]
Except Social Security taxes are exactly that: taxes. And thus in that case Congress was being allowed to invoke an explicitly granted power. Indeed, look up the case he cites, U.S. v. Lee. It involved an Amish man arguing that he should exempt from the taxes because of his Amish faith. If you are wondering what on Earth it has to do with the constitutionality of the mandate, the answer would be “nothing.”
Tribe goes on:
The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.
Or shorter Tribe: “what Sebelius said.” The problem is that this analysis is completely divorced from the text of the Commerce Clause, which (as you might imagine) concerns itself with commerce. Just look at the language of the clause:
The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce… among the several States
So it has to be commerce, and it has to be “among” the states, i.e. interstate. And that is even more restrictive than it sounds to our modern ears. For instance in Jacob’s New Law Dictionary, published in 1783, the term commerce was limited to the moving of goods—which doesn’t include medical services or insurance at all. But the courts have read that limitation out of the Constitution. The clause also meant that it had to be interstate trade, but the courts long ago ruled that wholly intrastate trade was included by invoking the necessary and proper clause, thus implying into existence a power that was specifically denied to Congress. And in Wickard v. Filburn they defined commerce to mean making a product and not selling it in a market. And now they want to claim that means doing nothing at all. They want to snip the last thread of meaning from the limitations in the Commerce Clause. It would fit a certain “progression” in our case law, but if even this thin limitation were denied, then this provision would become literally limitless, making the entire exercise of limiting the scope of that clause pointless. The Supreme Court is loath to render any clause of the Constitution pointless.
But then Tribe gives away the game. He then retreats in a way that implies that he knows his position is untenable:
Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so. After all, the individual mandate is enforced through taxation, even if supporters have been reluctant to point that out.
Except of course Congress didn’t invoke its taxation power, a point Tribe doesn’t even try to address. And I don’t mean they didn’t say the magic words, but instead time and again, they treated the mandate as a penalty and not a tax. As I wrote, paraphrasing Judge Vinson’s opinion when describing all the reasons why he determined that the mandate was not a tax but a penalty:
- The act called it a penalty, not a tax.
- Earlier versions of this law, and similar proposals called it a tax. So as they went through their drafts, they changed the word “tax” to “penalty.”
- The law enacts a number of taxes and labels them as taxes, but not this alleged “tax.” This is an example of expressio unius, a concept I explain here.
- The findings of fact (in the statute) invoked Congress’ power under the commerce clause, but not the taxing power. Meanwhile the taxes in the act were justified under the taxing power.
- When the CBO ran its cost estimates, tallying how much the law would cost versus how much revenue it would raise, it didn’t include any money from the mandate. In other words, the CBO acted as though the mandate would raise absolutely no revenue at all.
- “[T]he Act lists seventeen ‘Revenue Offset Provisions’… and … it further includes a section entitled ‘Provisions Relating to Revenue’…. However, the individual mandate penalty is not listed anywhere in them.”
Tribe doesn’t even try to offer an answer to that. But then we get the part where things start to get galling:
Given the clear case for the law’s constitutionality, it’s distressing that many assume its fate will be decided by a partisan, closely divided Supreme Court.
You got that? As Althouse points out, he feels that his argument for the act’s constitutionality is so clear that if the court is closely divided it must be because they were partisan. Agreeing with him, naturally, is nonpartisan.
And reading that, I was reminded of something else. A few years back, a paper came out called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. In it, they alleged an inappropriate pro-Israel bias in American policy advanced by a network of pro-Israeli forces. No word on whether the Freemasons or the Illuminati were involved. James Taranto destroys their analysis by accurately describing it:
Walt and Mearsheimer argue that “neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel,” and therefore the only possible explanation is “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.” The premise is plainly false; the “Israel Lobby” in fact makes many strategic and moral arguments in its own favor. Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them[.]
In other words, they were sure that the people arguing in favor of Israel were doing so in bad faith because they were just so sure they were right that they believed that no one could disagree in good faith. And isn’t that what Tribe is doing here, without that creepy anti-Semitic undertone? He is saying, “I am so clearly right, no one can disagree with me intelligently and in good faith.”
But, alas, Tribe goes on:
Justice Antonin Scalia, whom some count as a certain vote against the law, upheld in 2005 Congress’s power to punish those growing marijuana for their own medical use; a ban on homegrown marijuana, he reasoned, might be deemed “necessary and proper” to effectively enforce broader federal regulation of nationwide drug markets. To imagine Justice Scalia would abandon that fundamental understanding of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause because he was appointed by a Republican president is to insult both his intellect and his integrity.
The amazing thing in that passage is his own description of the decision in Raich (this is the correct link) refutes his point. In Raich the court upheld regulations prohibiting the growth of marijuana for personal use—and thus pot that doesn’t enter into commerce at all. Why? Because otherwise people possessing pot would be able to force the government to constantly prove it was intended for distribution. So in order to execute the laws prohibiting interstate commerce in the drug, they could prohibit the cultivation of marijuana even for individual, non-commercial use. But there is a world of difference between expanding regulation in order to remove a potential loophole in the law and make the prosecution’s burden of proof easier, versus forcing a person to purchase a privately sold good or service in order to mitigate the damage caused by other Congressional laws. And that is what Scalia is saying, a point unintentionally acknowledged by his description of Scalia’s position: “might be deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to effectively enforce broader federal regulation.” (emphasis added)
He does a similar thing to Kennedy’s words in Lopez, trying to portray again sitting on your keister on your couch as economic activity. He goes on to allege that Roberts and Alito, are well, just too smart to follow those dumb judges that knocked down the mandate:
Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law. Those judges made the confused assertion that what is at stake here is a matter of personal liberty — the right not to purchase what one wishes not to purchase — rather than the reach of national legislative power in a world where no man is an island.
Well, first, let me address this to Tribe directly. Aren’t you laying this all on a little bit thick, Larry? Do you really think that the Supreme Court is so vain as to want or need your adulation or to fear the denunciation you signal will come from you if they deign to disagree with you? And do you really think they are too stupid to see what you are doing?
But as a matter of fact, yes, Laurence, this is about personal liberty. But he goes even further:
It would be asking a lot to expect conservative jurists to smuggle into the commerce clause an unenumerated federal “right” to opt out of the social contract.
You got that? If they refuse to stretch the Commerce Clause further than ever before, then they are just making up new rights in the Constitution—just like they did in Roe! The funny thing is that Roe vindicated precisely the unenumerated federal right he is complaining about, a right he has stood up for in the past. I mean if we are going to take Roe seriously, then it represents an extreme application of the right, to control one’s medical destiny. If that right means you can kill a fetus, surely it means you can choose not to buy health insurance. And Obamacare stomps all over that right.
And I would add that it would not be inconsistent for Kennedy to decide the case based on Roe. He upheld that decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Tribe also takes a swipe at Thomas, but frankly I am going to save that swipe for another post. I have been planning one on what is really going on with the Commerce Clause for a while and this feeds into it.
But Tribe ends on a sanctimonious note:
There is every reason to believe that a strong, nonpartisan majority of justices will do their constitutional duty, set aside how they might have voted had they been members of Congress and treat this constitutional challenge for what it is — a political objection in legal garb.
Which is ironic because when he betrays the principles of Roe in favor of Obamacare, he makes it clear that his objection to laws such as the partial birth abortion law was exactly that: a political objection in legal garb. For Tribe, the Constitution, even stuff he wants the courts to make up in it, don’t apply unless he wants it to, and will bend like the reeds if he thinks a certain assertion of congressional power is necessary or just advisable, in his opinion.
Finally as a coda, the piece notes that
Laurence H. Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, is the author of “The Invisible Constitution.”
He wrote a book called The Invisible Constitution? How appropriate.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Welcome to Instapundit readers! Please bookmark the main page — and if you are not already following Patterico on Twitter, you may do so here.
What is more frightening, AW, that Tribe was one of
narciso (e888ae) — 2/8/2011 @ 10:48 amObama’s mentors, or that he now works in the Justice
Department (I know an oversight on the part of the Times)
Just like they did when the Stealers beat Seattle in the Super Bowl a few years ago. The head ref has practically admitted it too.
sherlock (44cc74) — 2/8/2011 @ 10:49 amWhen EPW hijacks the thread to talk Palin:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/offshore-oil-drilling-arctic-shell-cancels?click=pm_latest
My guess Tribe is preparing the ground for mass bloodletting of the Nutroots ’cause any fool can see the mandate’s goin’ down.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:03 amSo, am I to understand that women have the absolute right to kill their unborn child up until the instant of birth, often with taxpayer subsidy, and yet don’t have the right to “risk” their own health (or death) by denying having taxpayer-funded insurance? What a mixed up world. Maybe George Carlin was right after all. Women should have the right to abort their children up to the age of 40. That way we could eliminate a lot of wrong thinkers among the political class.
dfbaskwill (ca54bb) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:06 amLike judges, refs hold differing views as to what constitutes a violation. The best example is baseball, where it seems that every umpire has his own view of what constitutes the strike zone. While all judges would likely agree that the Constitution bans cruel punishments, it isn’t a surprise that they disagree as to what actually constitutes such a punishment.
I think the big problem – whether for a ref or a judge – is when they change their standards based on who is playing. But, even then, and in a perverse way, they’re still being consistent. They’re going to rule in favor of the party they like, and they’re not going to let petty matters like precedent interfere with them doing what they think needs to be done.
And in any event, Tribe’s article is irrelevant, just as all of the lower court proceedings. The Supreme Court has already decided how they’re going to rule on Obamacare, they just haven’t yet shared their decision with us. While they haven’t written their decision, does anybody doubt that each and every one of them hasn’t already made up his or her mind? And that nothing that happens between now and then is going to make them change their mind?
steve (369bc6) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:15 amsteve
i don’t think that is quite true. for instance, if republicans didn’t win the midterms, i think it would have been harder for kennedy to vote on obamacare. and don’t underestimate the value of persuasion. judge vinson’s ruling was really well written. every member of the court will read it. and i think if they are waivering, it will carry weight.
also, it will not help the left that they are so visciously attacking vinson.
i mean yes, when they passed the thing, scalia and thomas were probably thinking, “holy sh– that is appallingly unconstitutional.” maybe roberts and alito did, too. as for kennedy, kennedy has been asking, “i don’t like it. but will i damage the court if we strike it down?”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:19 amTribe is considered a leading legal mind? Really?
JD (973de1) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:37 amJD
yes, really. think what you will of that.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:40 amManu Raju at Politico, 2/8/2011, has a somewhat pertinent article. Excerpt follows.
“A new Dem threat to health care law”
“A handful of moderate Senate Democrats are looking for ways to roll back the highly contentious individual mandate — the pillar of President Barack Obama’s health care law — a sign that red-state senators are prepared to assert their independence ahead of the 2012 elections…”
ropelight (52f650) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:43 amI see what you did there.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:43 amWere I in your profession, I would be embarrassed.
JD (973de1) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:43 amrope i saw that, via hot air.
they are starting to get concerned.
but still i want the SC to step in and decide it, and knock it all down. let them start from scratch. boehner will never let it see the light of day again.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:45 amTribe’s influence was mostly based on a constitutional law treatise that has lost a lot of its luster in recent years.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:47 amThe Supreme Court dealt with the taxpayer subsidy issue in Maher v. Roe.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:00 pmSomeone has never read Wickard or Raich, but then again, someone ignores that the individual mandate is opting out of paying a tax for not having health insurance. No one gonna make you carry insurance, Aaron (although to the be honest, you wouldn’t go without; you just think it’s cool for others to go without), but, when you show up to get your emergency care and you CHOSE not to have insurance, we’re gonna levy a tax on your free-loading ass.
Sort of why Congress put the mandate in the tax section of the US code.
this 6-3 ruling is really gonna disappoint you. Although, I imagine it could be 7-2, if Scalia decides to be a SCOTUS justice, rather than a political operative. We’ll see.
timb (449046) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:10 pmAW: We’ll never know for sure, but I doubt even a Kennedy is going to be swayed by public opinion…. because I think he, along with the others, long ago made up their mind, and anything that happens since then isn’t going to make them think otherwise (imagine Kennedy, the day he first became aware a mandate was part of Obamacare…”gee, I was in favor of it, didn’t think there was any constitutional problem with the mandate, but since the public is against it, I can see where I was wrong, that the Constitution does not in fact give the government that power….“???)
steve (369bc6) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:13 pmsomeone ignores that the individual mandate is opting out of paying a tax for not having health insurance.
The admin argued contra this. So did the Court. So has basically everyone. It is a penalty, a fine. Not a tax. Shocka that timmah is on his knees in front of Tribe.
JD (973de1) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:18 pmIt is doing no such thing, if for no other reason than IT ISN’T A F**KING TAX YOU THUNDERING MORON!!!
Correct. They will just extort the behavior out of you.
“That’s an awful nice savings account ya got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it…”
I currently go without. Been going without since at least the age of 18. Amazingly, I’m still here, and doing just fine, thank you. I have made the informed decision to not have insurance (especially since I am unemployed and the IRS doesn’t let me take a deduction for insurance premiums like it lets a business).
Again, IT ISN’T A TAX. Congress specifically chose to not make it a tax. I can’t believe you have survived this long being this stupid.
And if I were to go to the ER, the “system” doesn’t pay a f**king dime. See, I’m the one who gets the bill, no one else.
How am I free-loading? I’m taking the entire cost myself. That’s the direct opposite of “free-loading”.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:18 pmI mean if we are going to take Roe seriously, then it represents an extreme application of the right, to control one’s medical destiny. If that right means you can kill a fetus, surely it means you can choose not to buy health insurance.
Kennedy would distinguish the two by arguing that the act of abortion directly involves your “medical destiny,” while purchasing health insurance is an economic activity that only indirectly affects your right to determine blah blah blah.
Scrutineer (b496e6) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:19 pmtimb
feel free to quote the part in gonzales or wickard that supports your position and prove me wrong. i am sure you can do a better job than the tribal one.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:21 pmIt’s amazing how many lies you packed in here.
I would be very happy with a charge that only applied to those who showed up to emergency rooms ‘free loading’. but that’s not even approximately accurate, timb. They want to penalize those who aren’t freeloading, too. You are demonizing freedom in the service of being a partisan hack.
No one is gonna make me get insurance, but if I don’t comply with Obamacare, I’m evading the IRS and go to prison. Lovely, democrats. Fortunately, this political issue will decide the 2012 elections, too. No amount of lying will fool us.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:22 pmscrutineer
well, one can never prove what someone will do ahead of time. the very act of trying my change his or her behavior.
But obamacare is the end of privacy, period. kennedy has invested too much in it, to give it up. imho.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:24 pmscrutineer
also there is another distinction between the right to control how your money is spent on health care v. abortion. when you choose not to buy health insurance, you are definitely not killing anyone.
i mean there is that.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:25 pmTechnically, the free-loaders would be those who use their policies.
People like me, who generally avoid doctors would be the ones they would be free-loading on – people who pay for policies they never use.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:28 pmRight. Plus them death panels, too. And cats mating with dogs… it doesn’t end.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:29 pmYou will use the health care system one day, and for a lot more than just a routine check-up. I virtually guarantee it.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:31 pmAh, but you can’t be certain.
But you wish to make me pay anyways.
I would rather pay out-of-pocket. It costs less in the long-term.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:32 pmsomeone ignores that the individual mandate is opting out of paying a tax for not having health insurance.
timb once again shows his basic lack of integrity by arguing a point that the Democrats intentionally legislated against, that the administration argued against and that Judge Vinson specifically addresses to the contrary.
Incompetence like that is what has given timb his reputation – that of an incompetent partisan hack without any credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:32 pmkman
yeah, except it does end privacy. and you know it.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/06/has-health-care-reform-overturned.html
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:33 pmTo be fair, Aaron, I’m not entirely sure that Kman knowss anything
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:35 pmAnd neither can you.
But if you’re wrong, and you get have the need for some major healthcare — the kind which you can’t pay out-of-pocket, guess who ends up subsidizing your health care?
So, yes. I’m SURE it costs less in the long-term to pay out-of-pocket.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:37 pmYeah. I thought your post read like an op-ed from The Onion.
Speaking of which….
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:40 pmForgive me, but I rather trust MY judgment more than I trust yours or the government’s.
You would have me, at the CHANCE that I may require serious medical care, be forcedd to buy something I do not want.
Fine.
You are being required to buy a gun, because someone MAY break into your house and you MAY have to defend yourself.
Tell me why you shouldn’t be required.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:41 pmI have an overwhelming desire to travel back in time and give Kman’s father a box of condoms…
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:43 pmRight. Same as “forcing” you to purchase seat belts in your car. And in both cases, you’ll live (pun intended)
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:46 pmKman, I’m not forced to purchase seat belts. Car manufacturers are forced to manufacture cars equipped with seat belts.
You really are not very good at this “logic” thing. And you seem extraordinarily ignorant of how the world works.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:47 pmAnd they provide them to you — the parts, material, and labor — for free? Cool!
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:50 pmNot even close to the same thing. No one is forced to purchase a car, so no one is forced to purchase seatbelts.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:51 pmSPQR
ftfy
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:52 pm“Ah, but you can’t be certain.
And neither can you.”
Kman – So then we create the issue of unhealthy people free riding on the forced participation of healthy people in the health insurance market, while premiums rise for everyone. Heckuva job Barcky!
The issue of people not able to afford health insurance remains unchanged because they will free ride after the fact through government subsidies for the purchase health insurance.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:52 pmkman
jeebus christ you are stewpid.
are you saying that cars are not instrumentalities of interstate commerce?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:53 pmAnd no one is forced to purchase health insurance under Obamacare either.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:56 pmKMan, I missed where the government penalized me for failing to buy a car…
XBradTC (3d2322) — 2/8/2011 @ 12:58 pmKman, so your current brilliant tactic is to see how long it takes before your circular logic has you contradicting your own comments.
That’s just f**king brilliant.
Your crap would be rejected on the Art of Trolling for lameness.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:01 pm“And they provide them to you — the parts, material, and labor — for free? Cool!”
Kman – The government is regulating the car manufacturers, not the car purchasers.
The government can regulate insurance companies, not insurance……..
Finish the above.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:05 pmSo, what is the current federal penalty for not purchasing a car?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:14 pmxbrad
good point.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:15 pmYou’re still not forced, gentlemen. Are there consequences? Sure. But your “freedom” isn’t taken away, like most of you like to claim.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:16 pmKman, now you are misrepresenting the entire thread.
Still more evidence of your lack of credibility. Gee, we got timb with an earlier name in the alphabet.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:18 pmYou are being forced to spend money. Either you spend it on insurance, or you spend it on the penalty.
Again, what is the penalty for not buying a car?
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:18 pmGood gawd, you are so full of shit. You didn’t answer my question: what is the penalty imposed by the federal government for not buying a car?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:21 pmkman
i love this you’re not forced to buy insurance line from you.
I mean imagine that applied to all the other laws.
You’re not forced to avoid sexual harrassment. You just have to pay the compensatory and punitive damages that result from it.
You’re not forced to avoid theft. You just have to go to prison if you break that rule.
You’re not forced to avoid murdering idiot trolls who lie through their teeth and spout idiotic liberal talking points. You just get the death penalty if you break that rule.
Penalties are precisely how we force people to do things in our society.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:22 pmKman,
you do realize “mandate” is another word for “force?”
Are you incredibly stupid, or just so ideologically committed that you can’t even represent the Obamacare legislation in the same terms the very Democrat politicians who passed it used?
I’m used to seeing dishonesty from the left, but this is rather blatant.
XBradTC (3d2322) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:22 pmBy kman’s logic, I’m not forced to pay taxes on income either.
Woohoo!
XBradTC (3d2322) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:26 pmYou’re spending money ANYWAY when you pay for health care (and over the course of your life, you DO pay for health care). The only difference is the mechanism in which money goes from your pocket to the health care provider. If it is done through a risk pool, then it is cheaper across the board for everyone, but that only works if everyone participates.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:28 pmNo, that’s not true. The total cost of health care will remain the same, regardless of how many people buy insurance. Insurance just spreads the cost around.
If everyone participates in the risk pool, the cost will be less for some and more for others.
Now, you continue to duck my question: what is the federal penalty for not purchasing a car?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:31 pmIf it is done through a risk pool, then it is cheaper across the board for everyone, but that only works if everyone participates.
So now my first amendment right to association is abrogated, in that I’m forced to associate with others…
XBradTC (3d2322) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:32 pmthat’s true, but only to a point. It’s actually a great avenue for wealth transfer. For young healthy men who are exclusive to wives, it is drastically more expensive to buy the kind of health insurance democrats want you to have (as opposed to the kind they have outlawed that would have a very high deductible and only cover catastrophes).
The left wants some people to pay for goodies for other people, while using those goodies to buy votes. They don’t give a crap about personal freedom.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:36 pmWow, that’s a stretch. I suppose your forced to associate with others by contributing to social security, too….
These constitutional objections are kind of grasping at straws now.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:37 pmExactly.
It’s one thing to support Obamacare, or single payer, or some health care reforms like Palin recommends. Lots of room for civil and interesting discussion of what would be best, what would be constitutional, and what the people really want. And then there’s just lying and demonizing by shills, which in Kman’s case is not even meant to persuade anyone.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:38 pmxbrad
> [to kman] you do realize “mandate” is another word for “force?”
He gets too distracted by the words “man” and “date” to realize they mean something different when they are one word.
he’s a lonely, sad little man.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:39 pmBS. I don’t want to pay for abortions. I want the right to do business how I please. I shouldn’t be forced to fund your healthcare, freeloader.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:40 pm“As you may or may not know Tribe is a respected Professor of Law and is generally considered one of the giants of the profession.”
Rorschach (c5574d) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:40 pmRespected by whom? Certainly not me. He’s a freaking idiot if you ask me, but then again I feel the same way towards Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan as well. Between the five of them you couldn’t find enough brains to win at tic tac toe.
Kman
Why do you continue to refuse to answer whether the Federal Government should require you to purchase a gun? You’ve been asked that question, directly, at least a dozen times. You can’t argue it’s an illegitimate point – you tried to use it yourself in the last thread.
Why won’t you answer the question?
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:40 pmkman
right, kman, because under the first amendment congress can outlaw the boycott, right?
wow, that would have made things go differently with the boston tea party.
you ever notice how out of step you are with what america is really about?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:40 pmThe point I’m making is that the total spent on health care in this country will not change if we have everyone buying health insurance. By making everyone buy insurance, we just spread the risk around. By necessity, some people will be paying more for their health insurance than they consume in health care. Therefore, the cost to them will go up.
Kman’s argument is akin to saying that if everyone bought the same auto insurance, the number of traffic accidents will go down.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:40 pmDustin’s right. It’s terrible how I’ve been demonizing other people in this thread.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:42 pmKmart tried to slip that “it will be cheaper” canard in there. Only problem with that is that reality has shown that it will increase costs significantly, and force employers to drop coverage altogether, or obtain waivers from such wonderful policies, provided they are Friends of ObamaCare.
JD (d56362) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:43 pmWow, that’s a stretch. I suppose your forced to associate with others by contributing to social security, too….
Not really. SS is a tax levied by the government, which is well within the scope of powers granted to the government.
Obamacare is forcing me to enter a financial relationship with a private company, which may well engage in activities I find morally repugnant, such as offering coverage for contraception.
XBradTC (3d2322) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:43 pmYup. While for others, the cost will go down.
But over the lifetime of the average consumer, he/she enjoys both ends of the spectrum.
Unless, of course, you are a freeloader up until the point where you start to actually need health insurance — a problem that the Affordable Care Act tries to resolve (as the name of the act suggests).
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:46 pmI take your point some chump, and no doubt you’re quite right. It’s ridiculous to say that if everyone is insured, health care costs will go down.
In many ways beyond the one I mentioned, the opposite is the case.
Some will win the gamble, and some will lose.
I think one great point is that Obamacare will radically increase the number of people demanding healthcare in the market, which will drive the price up unless Obamacare is thuggish about payment (akin to Medicaid), which will drive people out of the health profession.
Supply will go down, demand will go up. In Kman’s fantasy, this means the price goes down. But the only reasoning he has is that democrats need to pretend Obamacare is fiscally conservative. Again and again, through lies like this, Kman types expose that they know the GOP is right about so many things.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:46 pmI’ve answered it from a constitutional perspective already. If you want my political opinion on it, the answer is “no”, but I don’t think that’s relevant.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:48 pmKman, first you said:
Then when I pointed out that for some people the cost will go up (which means, of course, that it won’t be cheaper across the board for everyone), you said:
Do you now abandon your claim that it will be cheaper for everyone, since you have admitted it will be more expensive for some? Or does “cheaper” mean something different in your vocabulary?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:48 pmKman, you still haven’t answered my question: what is the federal penalty for not purchasing a car?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:49 pmIn Chicago, today, the ACLU is blasting the city’s ever growing network of cameras. I swear, with these people you need an hourly scorecard any more to know when they think we can and can’t trust the government–and what is egregious invasion of privacy, versus what is just an innocent little ol’ individual mandate. From the ACLU’s press release:
“Chicago’s camera network invades the freedom to be anonymous in public places, a key aspect of the fundamental American right to be left alone,” the report states. “Each of us then will wonder whether the government is watching and recording us when we walk into a psychiatrist’s office, a reproductive health care center, a political meeting, a theater performance, or a book store.”
The hypocrisy and double talk from the left makes the head spin.
elissa (64a707) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:50 pmKman is now making up claims that have already been shown to be fraudulent by reality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:51 pmNo, that’s not true. Plenty of people die young and don’t “enjoy” both ends of the spectrum.
It is impossible for everyone to participate in the same risk pool and consume more than they pay over their lives.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:51 pmAlso, Kman’s lying about this freeloader problem. Obamacare does almost nothing about that. A huge number of the people who are freeloading aren’t even citizens. They don’t pay income tax. They are not affected by Obamacare.
He’s pretending normal self insured people who pay for glasses and doctor visits are crowding emergency rooms and freeloading, and then he pretends he’s not engaged in demonization. It’s amazing that he outs himself for lying every dozen or so comments like this.
Fact is, we’ll still have freeloaders. The people who are forced to by health insurance, and had chosen not to in the past, are largely just throwing their money away to subsidize other people. They weren’t freeloading at all.
And as it becomes impossible to obtain many life saving treatments, due to high demand or government BS, those treatments will be available only to extremely wealthy people. Kman’s plan is about power, not affordable care for everyone.
It’s an interesting issue, but not when you’re just batting down lie after lie from some dumb hack who takes pride in bad faith and demonizing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:51 pmNo. It will drive down health care costs, so it will be cheaper for everyone, i.e., in the aggregate, over time.
I thought it was rhetorical.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:53 pmbtw, on theory that obamacare is a violation of the first amendment right to boycot, theory…
i have blogged on it before.
https://patterico.com/2010/12/01/boycotting-abortion-has-obamacare-been-sunk-by-citizens-united-and-the-naacp-v-claiborne-hardware/
And if you read through those comments before, Kman made the same discredited arguments, including the false (and idiotic) analogy to taxation.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:55 pmHow? You have this demonized group of people, largely a fiction, of income earning citizens who are crowding emergency rooms. This is pretty silly. If everyone has health insurance, the demand for health care will skyrocket, and most people involved with health care do not think Obamacare will increase the supply of health care professionals (quite the contrary).
You keep repeating your conclusion that costs will go down, but why would that be? That’s absurd.
I love how you asked for clarification of a hypo and now say you thought it was rhetorical. Yet another Kman lie.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:56 pmDustin, I have no problem with people who self-insure. You are, once again, making up sh*t as a result of your inability to understand plain English.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:57 pmKman, that’s pretty hilarious since it is you who are making up so much.
Not to mention that you wander around so much you don’t even notice when you contradict yourself with your incompetence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 1:58 pmBecause Americans loooooove going to the doctor’s……
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:00 pmYou are beyond a doubt the most intellectually dishonest poster I’ve ever encountered. No, my question was not rhetorical. It was a direct refutation of your assertion that not buying a car is like not buying health insurance. Since there is a federal penalty for not buying health insurance, what is the penatly for not buying a car? If there is no federal penalty for not buying a car, then would Congress have the power to impose one? If not, then buying a car and buying health insurance are not the same thing, contrary to your assertion.
It is impossible for it to be cheaper for everyone over time. It is impossible for everyone to pay less in insurance than they consume in health care over the course of their lives. Such a system would be unsustainable. You’re dead wrong on this one, Kman, and it’s high time you admit it.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:06 pmOutside of being named the Affordable Care Act, there is not one scintilla of proof that this lowers costs. In fact, it has shown to increase costs, dramatically, so far. Simply repeating your talking point will not make it so.
JD (306f5d) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:07 pmOh, puh-leeze! One of the reasons we were told that Obama Care was necessary is that too many people did not get enough medical care because they lacked insurance. Now that they have insurance, will they consume more medical care or less?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:09 pm1. I live in Florida. I cannot buy the same health insurance policies that they sell in Georgia or any other state. The policies sold in Florida (and every other state) are regulated and controlled by the government of the state. Doesn’t this argue against interstate commerce?
2. There are people who can and do pay for their own medical expenses. Not everyone who doesn’t have health insurance is getting a free ride on medical costs.
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:21 pmThe claim about driving down costs is an utter fraud and has been repeatedly shown to be so by the CBO and the Medicare actuary.
The repetition of the claim is a pretty good sign of utter dishonesty.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:22 pmThose 30,000,000+ people that were dying at alarming rates due to lack of health insurance would certainly not utilize their insurance once it is provided for them. That is just silly thinking, some chump.
JD (29e1cd) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:24 pmJD – Don’t forget about the 50,000,000 who are declaring bankruptcy every year because they have a $50 medical bill or something.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:29 pmdaleyrocks, those claims – of half or more of all bankruptcies “caused” by medical bills – are still being repeated despite the utter fraudulence of the original study and the misrepresentations piled on top of it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:31 pmSPQR – It is so unlike progressives to fake science and the outcome of studies to get the results they want. I am truly shocked.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:33 pmI believe that you can opt out of Social Security if you are a pastor.
I thought, can kman be blocked from commenting by a mandate until he satisfactorily answers questions he’s asked. So when he’s asked what’s the penalty for not buying a car or can Congress force everyone to buy guns, kman would not be allowed the comment until the question has been answered. All comments between the time a question is asked and responses received would be deleted.
When you think, is it a good idea?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:45 pmThat should be, what do you think, is it a good idea?
Sometimes this speech to text program drives me crazy.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:47 pmAsking about a penalty for not buying a car is concise, but a penalty for not buying an approved car would be more accurate.
JD (85b089) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:49 pmI believe that you can opt out of Social Security if you are a pastor.
Comment by Tanny O’Haley — 2/8/2011 @ 2:45 pm
Work for a church, and yes, this is true – FICA (Soc Sec and Medicare) is not charged if you’re a pastor.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:52 pmThey also don’t apply if you are an intern who is regularly attending classes in pursuit of a degree related to your internship.
Unless you are a medical student. Then you’re just f**ked.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 2:57 pmThe things I’ve learned from Kman today:
1. Being forced to buy health insurance is just the same as being forced to buy seatbelts with your car. Except that you’re not forced to buy a car, so you’re not forced to buy the seatbelts. And that you’re not really forced to buy health insurance, because you can always pay a penalty. So health insurance isn’t at all like seatbelts: it’s more like taxes, where you are not forced to pay them, you can just go to jail instead.
2. If everyone has health insurance, the cost of health care will somehow magically go down, so that everyone will be paying less on health care. Except for the people who will be paying more for health care, because they don’t consume as much. But that’s okay, because they’ll eventually consume more health care than they pay for, unless they die. And the health insurance industry will be as actuarily sound as Social Security.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:12 pmAnd in 98 comments, Some Chump wins the thread.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:13 pmWould Kagan be required either legally or ethically to recuse herself from ruling on Obamacare due to her former status as Solictor ?
Dennis D (e0b996) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:14 pmDennis D., I doubt it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:16 pmIt was NEVER about reducing the cost of healthcare. Had that been the real issue the target would have been providers not insurance companies. This was about insuring the uninsured in an attempt to win votes for the Dem party at everyone elses expense.
Dennis D (e0b996) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:16 pmDennis D., not to mention that there is absolutely no attempt at tort reform, and some of the provisions actually penalize states with tort reform legislation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:21 pmIt was NEVER about reducing the cost of healthcare. Had that been the real issue the target would have been providers not insurance companies. This was about insuring the uninsured in an attempt to win votes for the Dem party at everyone elses expense.
Comment by Dennis D — 2/8/2011 @ 3:16 pm
Bingo.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:26 pmDennis, I don’t think it was even that.
Had that been their intention, they would have divorced health insurance from employment, meaning they would have altered the tax code so that individuals could purchase insurance and get the tax deduction instead of only allowing businesses to do so.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:48 pmSome Chump @ 98, well done.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 3:52 pmThank you, Scott and Dustin. I forgot this:
3. The reason so many people without health insurance die early is because they don’t get enough health care. But when all these people now have health insurance, they won’t consume any more health care, so the demand for health care resources won’t skyrocket. So either they aren’t dying from lack of health care, in which case they don’t need health insurace, or their lack of insurance had nothing to do with why they didn’t get enough health care. But we’re going to give them health insurance anyway, even though it won’t actually solve the problem.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/8/2011 @ 4:01 pmThe problem with health care is mandates that require doctors, nurses and hospitals to provide care, even though the patient can not afford it. That involuntary servitude should be illegal per the 13th Amendment.
Do away with that unconstitutional provision, and you do away with the need for unconstitutional individual mandates for Obamacare. Anyone who wants to take the risk can take it, and it will be a risk that they either can not pay, or must wait until a doctor, nurse, or hospital is willing to work probono.
DonM (e03bc2) — 2/8/2011 @ 4:20 pmPart of the high cost of health care (say 300 dollars an hour as an estimate) is the mandate that emergency rooms (a high cost provider to begin with) provide care for those who can not, or choose not to pay.
So uninsured people go to emergency rooms for their sniffles or ouchies. The high cost is transferred to other people at the emergency room. Say half of the people who go there, do not pay. That means that their 300 dollars an hour are transferred to the people who can pay, and the effective price of a visit to the emergency room is now 600 dollars an hour.
Do away with the mandate, and first, emergency room costs drop to 300 dollars an hour. Second, people with sniffles and minor ouchies either go without, or go to a cheaper provider and pay for their treatment (or find a pro bono provider). That raises the wages of cheaper providers (fewer open spaces on their calendar).
Due to that, high costs
DonM (e03bc2) — 2/8/2011 @ 4:30 pmyeah, i second that. some chump ftw at 98.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/8/2011 @ 4:38 pmWell, it’s 99 now. But anyway.
I’d like to see tort reform, an improved environment for health care education, and a true catastrophic coverage option for healthy, generally self insured folks. Get government out of the way. When Michelle Obama gets a $300k kickback hospital job, that kind of bloat can only mean a completely handicapped system.
Also, we need to accept that as everything in our world has gotten cheaper, health care options haven’t because they are always cutting edge. Lasik costs more than eyeglasses, but that doesn’t mean the system is broken when compared to an era where you only could get the glasses. Same for cancer or heart disease treatments.
Great health care is pretty expensive, and no government hocus pokus will fix it. No demonized group of people are at fault, because the problem is that life extending treatments are valuable. Any system that tries to make something like that ‘free’ will be a disaster.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/8/2011 @ 4:47 pmdustin
i would like to see restrictions on interstate insurance policies reduced, too.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/8/2011 @ 4:51 pmIndeed, price controls on health care providers would work better. It would also have the side effect of reducing the cost of insuring people.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/8/2011 @ 5:47 pmmichael
and it would have the side effect of reducing providers.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/8/2011 @ 5:55 pmComment by Michael Ejercito — 2/8/2011 @ 5:47 pm
As the administration well knows by now (who knows if they knew before this catastrophe of a rammed-through-in-the-dead-of-night bill passed), roughly 45% of physicians IIRC plan on either practicing less or retiring from the field of active medical care if this plan ends up being implemented.
With the government in charge, costs are going to be reduced anyway. I spent nearly 15 years doing insurance reimbursement for a private medical practice in the inner city and the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are pathetic now. Just wait until X many more people are added to the rolls, the provider supply slowly (or quickly, who knows) dries up.
Or maybe Obama can just mandate that the doctors stay in practice to “fix” THAT Unintended Consequence # 1,346. This is all about power anyway, isn’t it: the power of getting new voters to support Democrats being in power, and the power over our health care, and life and death decisions at the end of our lives (liberals admit this will happen when they think conservatives aren’t reading – see below), and the health-related privacy we’ve taken for granted for a long time.
It’s amazing to me that far left liberals can actually watch publications like the New York Times and Newsweek literally admit that care for the sick elderly is going to need to be denied in many cases for this “plan” (ha) to work, and then go apoplectic when the phrase “death panels” is used to describe that reality.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 6:06 pmroughly 45% of physicians
Not positive but I think this was general practitioners to which they were referring
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 6:07 pmcosts are going to be reduced anyway
I meant reimbursements to providers, of course, NOT total medical costs, which of course (per the CBO and other people in a position to know) are going to skyrocket. Sorry about that.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 6:12 pmMichael Ejercito – I don’t understand why you are a fan of price controls given how poorly they have worked in the past.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:01 pmEvery failed idea in history will still find people who believe “It’ll work if they just do it right this time!”
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:13 pmNOYK
> Or maybe Obama can just mandate that the doctors stay in practice to “fix” THAT Unintended Consequence # 1,346.
well, its all like i said in the last post, on akhil’s piece:
> To see how dangerous this interpretation is, imagine that this was at any point in our history before 1859. Imagine Congress passed a series of regulations and liabilities upon doctors that was so onerous that they began to quit the profession entirely. So then Congress passes a law forcing those doctors to re-assume their old professions and occasionally conscripting citizens into the medical profession to replace those doctors who became too old to treat patients or died. According to Sebelius’ theory of the constitution, this involuntary servitude would be fully constitutional and would only present a constitutional problem after the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. Vinson wisely rejected that radical approach.
By some liberals’ approach the only thing preventing a physician mandate like you described is the 13th amendment.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:15 pmAW or other lawyer types – how is it that the Obarcky administration is able to pick and choose, by use of their selected waivers, who has to follow this monstrosity, and who does not?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:24 pmBecause the status quo is worse in this instance.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:28 pmI thought, can kman be blocked from commenting by a mandate until he satisfactorily answers questions he’s asked. …Comment by Tanny O’Haley
It is the policy of our all benevolent and magnanimous host that no one is banned from commenting unless they post or otherwise act in a way that truly endangers a person’s health or livelihood (that is my understanding).
However, on occasion when the following observation has been unusually obvious:
You are beyond a doubt the most intellectually dishonest poster I’ve ever encountered… Comment by Some chump,
voluntary self-imposed ignoring of said commentor has been invoked, by someone making a motion to ignore said commentor from that point on in the thread, a second of the motion is offered, and a vote of those in favor of the motion is tallied.
This has been done only rarely and is seen as a response to when the facts are ignored to a degree that is uncommon, even among those exhibiting “trollish” behavior.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:41 pmBy some liberals’ approach the only thing preventing a physician mandate like you described is the 13th amendment.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 2/8/2011 @ 7:15 pm
Good point. Had missed that in the other thread.
I swear I trust this administration so little that am almost convinced a little thing like the 13th amendment wouldn’t stop them. They’d find some rationale to do whatever they want to do.
All the breaking of rules by Democrats (refusing to accept the results of lawful elections, ignoring clear and direct election law, the way Obama got his online donations — who talks about that flagrant flouting of law anymore? — the way Obamacare got rammed through in violation of law, the way Phil Hare and others got caught on video nattering about “I don’t pay too much attention to the constitution” and “Yeah, we in government can pretty much do whatever we want”).
Nothing any Republicans ever did compares with this, it is on a massive and flagrant scale, it has the cooperation of much of the MSM, and I think those who are nervous about what power-hungry illegalities Obama and his administration will attempt next have good reason to be.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:44 pmFollowing on #122 by JD, if the plan is so wonderful, why aren’t more companies fighting for early implimentation?
My (only half-serious) prediction is that the plan is to let malpractice litigation get so out-of-control that the only way to practice medicine will be as a government employee and hence immune.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:45 pmSpeaking of the cooperation of the MSM, has anyone been following Chris Muir’s Day By Day cartoon site? The depiction of the media lately has been gaspworthy and funny, and am surprised there’s not been more media outrage at the servility with which they’re being portrayed.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:48 pmComment by no one you know — 2/8/2011 @ 6:12 pm
If that’s the study I’m thinking of, it should be disregarded (although I don’t remember where I saw the refutation, so I can’t provide a link). It wasn’t scientifically done, but instead involved self reporting by participants–which means that this was really a poll of people motivated enough to respond–meaning those who were really really dissatisfied with Obamacare (as opposed to people who were not dissatisfied enough to vocalize their objections). One would expect a higher number of those really really dissatisfied people to be actively considering retirement/moving on to a different career.
Comment by DonM — 2/8/2011 @ 4:30 pm
A good deal of the time, if those people end up at a public hospital, and the hospital is unable to collect payment, it’s eventually written off (usually under the rubric of charity), and whatever actual expenses the hospital has put out for them will be written off, and the money taken out of the general budget. This applies not nly to ER visits but to inpatient treatment. Your tax dollars, in one form or another, are a major source for that general budget, so, at least in the case of public hospitals, every taxpayer is paying for those ER visits and hospital stays, although the precise mechanism may vary from state to state. (Here in Florida, the Hospital District taxes are part of the overall property tax bill every year.)
I know this from the period when I was tangentially involved in the local public hospital administration. During that period, at least, the overwhelming number of such writeoffs seemed to be US citizens/legal residents who were simply too poor to pay their hospital bill and had no insurance.
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:48 pm“Every failed idea in history will still find people who believe “It’ll work if they just do it right this time!””
Stashiu3 – Heh! Russian communism failed because of 70 years of bad harvests due to bad weather, right? Global warming killed Russian communism?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:55 pmNOYK
> I swear I trust this administration so little that am almost convinced a little thing like the 13th amendment wouldn’t stop them. They’d find some rationale to do whatever they want to do.
Well, the thirteenth amendment has never stopped the big government types from claiming that I, as a lawyer, can be conscripted into the defense of a person i would rather not defend. Like I said to a friend the other day, my sister was beat by her husband. I they ever try to draft me into representing a wife beater, I will invoke the thirteenth amendment and tell them they can go to hell. I did not give up my constitutional rights by entering this profession.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:56 pmThe study about how many doctors would retire may not have been done scientifically, but you would be in great error to dismiss the general sentiment.
The typical student going into medicine does (in my experience) have a significant amount of “altruism”/ “compassion”/ an interest in “serving” and “helping” people. But just like the poster says, we learn to treat others the way we are treated. Make people go into enormous debt for the opportunity to be overworked and ridiculed by superiors and 7 years later it is harder for those original characteristics to be on display. For those who still do, the thing that gives them satisfaction is the opportunity to work with people. You take that away by making healthcare a matter of efficient production then you no longer have doctors and patients, you have technicians and bodies.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:00 pmCompassionate cookbook medicine is an oxymoron.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:03 pmHi Stash-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:08 pmYeah yeah yeah. Now dance, monkey. Dance for our jurisprudencial amusement!!!
MWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:09 pmbut you would be in great error to dismiss the general sentiment.
Obviously the sentiment exists–but 45% is probably a serious overstatement about how widespread the idea of retiring because of Obamacare actually is.
I’ll ask you, you being an MD and all–
1) Are you considering retirement because of Obamacare, or at least considering retirement sooner than you would otherwise?
2)Among the doctors you know, do you have any idea of how widespread the idea of retiring because of Obamacare might be?
(You may have made comments that answered those questions before, but I don’t remember them if you did.)
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:10 pmHey MD 🙂
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:12 pmI did not give up my constitutional rights by entering this profession.
No, but you did become an officer of the court, and agreed to abide by the Virginia/DC State Bar rules on pro bono work. Which here in Florida can be satisfied by a financial donation to a legal aid organization or performed by one attorney on behalf of any and all other attorney at the firm.
And if worse came to worse, you’d be a much worse attorney than you seem from what you post here, if you couldn’t find a conflict of interest argument that would let you escape defending a wifebeater.
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:17 pmIndianapolis came in #82 in a ranking of Americas angriest cities. We would have been significantly better were timmah not here.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:18 pmtimmah says it’s a tax, not a fine, and declares the issue settled.
kman does not believe in the right of people to choose not to go to the doctor.
Icy Texan (1aa130) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:19 pm120. Every failed idea in history will still find people who believe “It’ll work if they just do it right this time!”
Comment by Stashiu3 — 2/8/2011 @ 7:13 pm
— Hence, the left’s ‘kinder, gentler’ form of Marxism. [BTW, I won our bet: McCain NOT running in 2012] 😉
Icy Texan (1aa130) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:22 pmIcy – too bad the House, the Senate, Barcky, Sebelius, and the courts do not share his quaint little view.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:23 pmSorry, I shouldn’t have been lazy about finding this link when I first posted:
New poll indicates 40% of physicians will retire or find other work under ObamaCare
Note: the original Investors Business Daily poll said 44%, and the subsequent “vindication” poll they refer to in the link said 40%.
For what the two polls are worth.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:25 pmMD in Philly – Don’t know whether you know anything about them, but isn’t it a lot tougher for doctors to get “own occ” disability policies now since so many insurance companies got burned on them in the 1980s and 1990s?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:31 pmI honestly don’t recall that bet and couldn’t find it with Google. I tried looking after your comment on the other thread because I was totally confused. Do you remember the thread… and did we make stakes that I need to pay off?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 8:54 pmI like it when Stash comments. Even if he is an icky racist 😉
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:00 pmFTFY 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:03 pmWell played.
If HHS is passing out waivers to some, but denying others, forcing some to play by one set of rules, and everyone else by another, how would Equal Protection apply?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:09 pmI like it when Stash comments.
Dittoes. Don’t see his thoughts nearly enough.
how would Equal Protection apply?
Comment by JD — 2/8/2011 @ 9:09 pm
Silly racists. Rules are for
no one you know (325a59) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:15 pmkids.people who can’t bribe Democrats. –ObamaOr people who aren’t black.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:16 pmEqual protection would apply because everyone is treated according to the same rule… waivers for those liked by the administration, none for those who are disliked. If you want a waiver, just make the administration like you. Max donations from each family member (including the 30 fish in your aquarium) to the administration’s favorite cause (themselves) would be a good start.
/sarc off
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:17 pmIt’s been several months. Can’t remember myself.
Icy Texan (1aa130) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:20 pmHmmmm… methinks you may have me confused with somebody else. Except for this thread and one other recently, I’ve only made a handful of comments since early July. No worries. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:38 pmHmm . . . maybe it was Karl.
BTW, in searching I came upon a post on Bradblog by our favorite 9/11 truther, Blubonnet, in which she accuses me of (twice!) calling for her to be killed(!) Oh, that silly girl!!!
Icy Texan (1aa130) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:53 pmIcy Texan – I saw that thread over at Braddy’s place. I think Blu feels right at home with his commenters.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 9:58 pmPfft.
Like you would be so amateur as to call for her to be harmed blatantly.
I mean, wtf did we go through all that work setting up that code for if we aren’t going to use it?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/8/2011 @ 10:17 pmI mean, it’s not like you were JeffyG or something…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/8/2011 @ 10:17 pmI do NOT want her to be harmed. In fact, I want her to publish her revelatory work, with a special introduction written by Rosie O’Donnell.
Icy Texan (1aa130) — 2/8/2011 @ 10:59 pmMessage received.
The toucan flies at half-past 3:30-ish.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:06 pmBlu sleeps hanging upside down, during daylight hours.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/8/2011 @ 11:33 pmYou’re just ‘crushing their head’ * Icy,
* vintage Kids in the Hall
narciso (e888ae) — 2/9/2011 @ 4:03 amdaley- I know what you are talking about but I don’t know the answer to your question.
kishnevi- I would not trust any specific number that I would give, but I think you and others ought to believe it is a serious concern, and not just a PR campaign to scare people. My belief would be that the only doctors who think it is a good idea are left-leaning academicians who don’t see a lot of patients anyway, people still in med school and residency who like the idea of “everything being fair” but don’t appreciate what it will mean in practice, and people who are committed leftists.
I don’t think any professional or craftsman wants to be in a position to be told what to do and how to do it, especially by someone not in the same profession or skilled tradesman who is far away without first hand knowledge.
I think it is easier and cheaper to see a doctor than an attorney, especially a good one. I have some personal acquaintences who were hit with a SLAPP because they spoke up about about questionable business practices with a Charter school. Everything they stated in public has been shown to be true, the school was disciplined by the state because of it, one person connected to the situation committed suicide before he was indicted by the feds for his behavior with another charter school, and still they are faced with the suit because one person has the money to pay a lawyer to continue after them even though the case has no merit. The few lawyers inclined to help stated their offices did not have the resources to do the work pro bono or were junior enough in their offices they had no power to commit themselves. When Obama and trial lawyers agree to practice under terms set up by physicians, you will then find physicians willing to practice under terms set up by lawyers.
There are many good lawyers, including some that could make more money than they are because of their commitment to people having acceess to just legal procedures, and I’ve had personal contact with pretty big lawyers taking their turn at pro bono work, but that is what doctors do and for Obama and others it is not enough.
Personally, I’ve generally worked for 1/2 or less of the average doctor’s salary in my field because I’ve worked in underserved areas, so pay would not be the issue. The issue would be whether I could successfully negotiate giving the kind of care I could live with under the work conditions required, and I doubt that I could. I would wear myself out trying or have to practice medicine in a way that would violate my conscience, which would not last long either. I’ve already had that problem as it is with the demands of administrators and insurance companies.
Stashiu3 is always around, he just has more self control and less vanity than some of us who feel compelled to put in our 2 cents most of the time.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/9/2011 @ 5:53 am“If HHS is passing out waivers to some, but denying others, forcing some to play by one set of rules, and everyone else by another, how would Equal Protection apply?”
Equal protection means everyone gets the same standard. It also, in this type of matter, would get rational basis review.
savoirfaire (e64787) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:04 amI don’t know why all the talk about Amar and Tribe. Charles Fried’s already explained the constitutionality.
“Except Social Security taxes are exactly that: taxes.”
An interesting twist is folks who like privatization of social security by creating personal accounts. Basically, they’re for a mandate to buy retirement investment assets.
savoirfaire (e64787) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:11 amsavoir
every proposal for private accounts in SS was to make them optional.
And Fried has not. he just assumes that sitting on your behind is commerce. it is not and has never been.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:15 ama mandate to buy retirement investment assets
That is still better than a mandate to fund a Ponzi scheme.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:19 amSo, “saviorfaire” are are saying that the waivers would violate Equal Protection?
I would like to opt out of Social Security. Will you let me?
Oh, and post under one name.
JD (8c753a) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:22 amAs Aaron pointed out, the Social Security privatization schemes were all optional, so no one was required to buy anything. Further, there are plenty of investments that don’t cost you anything: a savings account at your bank (which would still give you a better rate of return than Social Security), and a no-load mutual fund are just two examples.
MD is right: it’s much easier to find a good doctor than it is to find a good lawyer, and a doctor will cost you less. I’d call for Legal Reform, but every time Congress reforms something, it gets more expensive.
MD, I’m going to be in Philly in a couple of weeks. I’ll drink a toast in your honor.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:36 amsome chump – they don’t reform things, they deform them.
JD (8c753a) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:38 amI’d call for Legal Reform, but every time Congress reforms something, it gets more expensive.
Hmm, that poses quite a dilemma, now that you mention it. So we would like tort reform, but if Congress tries to do it the situation will likely get worse rather than better…that is potentially a discouragement of existential proportions… I bet even Spock would be stymied by this…Shakespeare would have put it:
To reform, or not to reform, that is the question.
Tis it better to suffer the injustices of the tort system,
or in trying to stop them, make them worse?
Some chump, if you have time and inclination, visit the City Tavern for lunch or dinner, you might see Ben Franklin and can taste some of George Washington’s homemade brew.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:46 amThe waivers would not violate equal protection. Congress created a category for who gets waivers, and this category is subject to rational basis review.
“As Aaron pointed out, the Social Security privatization schemes were all optional, so no one was required to buy anything”
The alternative to not buying retirement assets? Paying social security. The alternative to not buying health insurance? Paying the individual responsibility payment.
This is akin to the argument advanced during the hearing the other day. The government could simply mandate that you purchase health insurance by taxing you and then giving you health insurance. How could they lack to the power to give people even more choice and use an even more free market approach?
“Further, there are plenty of investments that don’t cost you anything: a savings account at your bank (which would still give you a better rate of return than Social Security), and a no-load mutual fund are just two examples.”
These investments cost you the money in them. That’s what is meant by buying retirement assets — it’s not just a reference to the costs of management or transaction costs of owning the assets, but also to the amount you’ve put into the asset.
savoirfaire (ce539a) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:51 amSo, you can explain to us why some people get waivers and others do not. We patiently await.
Taxes and penalties are not the same, no matter how hard you try to make them so.
Iamadimwit just cannot quit us.
JD (8c753a) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:56 amSo Savy (I can call you ‘Savy’, yes?), under what Constitutional Power does Congress have the authority to issue the mandate?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:57 amsavoir:
> The alternative to not buying retirement assets? Paying social security
Look you are arguing about somethign proposed and never implemented. but my understanding was the plan was to require you to pay into SS regardless. but you would be given the option of taking a voucher, if you will, and then being able to put it toward a private account.
And the fact is that the mandate is a penalty and not a tax. Which, if you bothered to read the post you would know.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:59 amNo, they don’t “cost” you that money. First, you own the account, so you’d own the money in them. You haven’t spent that money on anything. Unless you want to argue that putting part of your paycheck into your savings account “costs” you anything, in which case you’d be an idiot. Second, the money you’d put in the account would be the same amount you’d pay to Social Security, but your return on your investment wouldn’t be subject to the whims of Congress.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:01 am“So, you can explain to us why some people get waivers and others do not. We patiently await. ”
Some meet the standard and some don’t. You do realize there’s a standard, right?
“Look you are arguing about somethign proposed and never implemented”
Proposed by the same people that also at one time proposed the health insurance mandate!
“And the fact is that the mandate is a penalty and not a tax”
So if it was just called a tax it would be fine? Ok then, let’s call it that.
“No, they don’t “cost” you that money. First, you own the account, so you’d own the money in them. ”
Yes but you can only use it in retirement. It costs you the loss of that money until then. If you’re mandated to buy health insurance, it costs you money, but you get your own health insurance too.
“Second, the money you’d put in the account would be the same amount you’d pay to Social Security, but your return on your investment wouldn’t be subject to the whims of Congress.”
This argument I never understood. Of course congress can affect the returns on an investment account — they can regulate it, and tax it!
savoirfaire (ca368f) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:10 amAnd if I don’t need to see a doctor for, say, 13 years?
Haven’t I just wasted 13 years worth of premiums?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:18 amNow you’re either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.
Money in your retirement account doesn’t COST you anything. Your net worth is the same whether you put the money into an account or keep it. Money spent on insurance is money gone, and your net worth is lowered.
Sigh. Okay, I’m convinced: you really are an idiot. Your Social Security benefits are determined by Congress. Benefits from your retirement investments are not. Both of those benefits are subject to taxation from Congress.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:21 amIamadimwit is transparent, no matter what name it uses.
What standard is Sebelius applying?
JD (822109) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:22 amLet’s put an even finer point on it:
Money you are forced to contribute to Social Security is not your own. If you die, that money goes away. Money you put into your own retirement account becomes an asset that you can assign to heirs.
Health insurance is not an asset, since it has no tangible value. You might use that insurance, and you might now.
There’s no way that privatization of Social Security would be anything like a mandate to purchase health insurance.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:26 amsavoir
> So if it was just called a tax it would be fine? Ok then, let’s call it that.
its more likely to be fine, yes. i have said that repeatedly.
so the solution is obvious. the courts will strike down obamacare and you guys can try to repass it with an explicit tax increase included.
good luck with that.
> Proposed by the same people
But you miss my point. how do you know the exact mechanics of it, exactly? you started by falsely asserting it would be the government mandating that people take their own money and devote it to a retirement fund. when challenged you backed off of that. so what is your proof of how you claim it would operate?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:33 amSome meet the standard and some don’t. You do realize there’s a standard, right?
Comment by savoirfaire — 2/9/2011 @ 8:10 am
I didn’t actually. What exactly is the standard?
no one you know (325a59) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:36 am“Haven’t I just wasted 13 years worth of premiums?”
This is a weird way of looking at how insurance works.
“Money in your retirement account doesn’t COST you anything. Your net worth is the same whether you put the money into an account or keep it”
The least it costs you is the lost liquidity.
“Money you are forced to contribute to Social Security is not your own. If you die, that money goes away. Money you put into your own retirement account becomes an asset that you can assign to heirs.”
This is an argument for how these reforms are creating a mandate.
“Health insurance is not an asset, since it has no tangible value”
Here’s a few house republicans finding that having insurance has quite a bit of a tangible effect:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49117.html
“There’s no way that privatization of Social Security would be anything like a mandate to purchase health insurance.”
The only way is that you’d be taxed if you fail to purchase something!
“so what is your proof of how you claim it would operate?”
The heritage foundation description of the plan: buy a product, or pay the tax. How else do you imagine these plans working?
savoirfaire (ca368f) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:38 am“I didn’t actually. What exactly is the standard?”
Really? I’m surprised. Have you followed this issue for a while? It didn’t take long for me to find it on the HHS website.
savoirfaire (ca368f) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:41 amThat’s not a cost in economic terms. Your net worth is unchanged.
This is a non-sensical statement.
Tangible “effect” is not the same thing as tangible value. You’re being dishonest with this statement.
Again, contributing to your own retirement fund is not purchasing anything. Try again, asswipe.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:42 amBS.
What’s the standard, in specific clear cut terms I can apply an achieve an objective ‘pass’ or ‘fail’. And obviously you’re going to need a USC cite to justify the administrative law aspect.
Strange you found this on a website and didn’t provide a hyperlink. You can hyperlink the residence someone’s family lives in, but you can’t hyperlink something germane to your argument?
What a jerk.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:45 am“That’s not a cost in economic terms. Your net worth is unchanged.”
Net worth is not the only economic term out there. But you’ll find that people talk of buying things even if net worth doesn’t change — you can buy an asset and have that transaction not affect your net worth. Like buying a CD, or buying a mutual fund.
“Tangible “effect” is not the same thing as tangible value. ”
It seems to have an effect that hits them in the pocketbook. Normal people consider this “value.”
“Again, contributing to your own retirement fund is not purchasing anything”
Maybe if it was at a greater level of abstraction — it’s getting taxed if you fail to enter into a contract — then you’d quit telling me moronic things like that having insurance has no value?
savoirfaire (85b83e) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:55 amJust show us the link you claimed you had.
Already.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:57 amIt didn’t take long for me to find it on the HHS website.
Comment by savoirfaire — 2/9/2011 @ 8:41 am
OK. Link to the standard, please?
no one you know (325a59) — 2/9/2011 @ 8:59 amI’m done with savoirfaire. If he’s not imdw, he went to the same seminar on how to use fallacious arguments.
MD, I’ll look up the City Tavern. I’m staying downtown (don’t recall the hotel name), but I won’t have a car. If it’s within staggering distance of my hotel, I’ll have a drink or four there. You’re welcome to join me in a libation, as I will have a great deal of time on my hands while I’m there.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 9:30 amSo wait… It is BAD for people to be allowed to do something that doesn’t change their net worth (and btw, CDs and mutual funds do affect your net worth – they increase it), but GOOD that they be forced to do something that does change their net worth (and changes it for the worse, I might add)?
See, I have no access to my SSI account. I can’t liquidate it (even with a penalty). It is money that is gone that maybe I will get to see again.
And at 32, I’m pretty sure I won’t.
Not what that effect is to reduce what I have in my pocket book and not provide anything in return. I don’t consider a mugging to be a “value add”.
I’ll type slowly, since you appear to be kinda stupid…
IT ISN’T A TAX YOU GREAT AND THUNDERING MORON!!!
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 9:34 amDimwit never changes. Only its name.
JD (0d2ffc) — 2/9/2011 @ 9:47 amHere’s what my searching found:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/ociio_2010-1_20100903_508.pdf
Did you guys really not even wonder if there was a standard, or, god forbid, an HHS website that explained this issue?
“See, I have no access to my SSI account”
I’d argue you don’t even have an “account.”
savoirfaire (847865) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:28 amThen what’s that letter I get from SSA every year about?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:39 amAlso, that’s a pretty weak set of guidelines.
Numbers 1-3 are just details on the existing plan (number of people using it, cost of the plan, etc), and #5 is just “promise that you aren’t lying”.
#4 is left without any real guidance. It is saying “You tell us why, and we’ll decide if it’s a good enough reason”.
I suspect that if we were to look at the rejected applications and compared them to some that were approved, we’d find a lot of cases where there was no measurable difference.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:45 amA promissary note, Scott 🙂
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:46 amHe’s right, you don’t.
Flimflam. Smoke and mirrors. You have no right to any particular level of benefits when you retire; if the system is still around then, you will get whatever the Congress of the time decides to give you. If Congress decides to end the scheme altogether, you have no recourse. What’s on that statement is merely a projection of what you would receive when you retire, if today’s laws were to continue in effect until then
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:57 amIf the courts rule that the mandated retirement accounts are unconstitutional, so much the better; make them voluntary, which is what we really wanted all along. Making them mandatory is a compromise with the Democrats, not a Republican principle. Mandatory retirement investment is bad; it’s just not as bad as what we have now.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/9/2011 @ 12:01 pmI know that. You know that.
I was just wondering if HE knew that.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 12:11 pmThat was a pathetic effort today, imdw. Even for you.
JD (29e1cd) — 2/9/2011 @ 12:19 pmComment by savoirfaire — 2/9/2011 @ 11:28 am
Thank you for the link; hadn’t seen that particular page. Here’s a paragraph in the middle of several requirements to get a waiver (subject to government approval, of course):
[Officials need to see a] brief description of why compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits for those currently covered by such plans or policies, or significant increase in premiums paid by those covered by such plans or policies, along with any supporting documentation; and
How much is “significant” to a company, and will an unelected bureaucrat agree? That is an awfully ambiguous requirement right there, and prompts many people to say things like (am reproducing a long quote since this is so well said):
Even apart from the practical ambiguity in ObamaCare, the new system damages the principal of the rule of law. Instead of creating the regulations explicitly so that Americans could understand the costs of compliance, Congress punted most of the regulatory duties to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. The waivers that immediately resulted show that rather than following a rule of law, Americans must now follow a rule of bureaucratic whim.
That’s one of the “most troubling” aspects of ObamaCare — and a demonstration that the 111th Session of Congress utterly abdicated its duty in favor of political expediency. If regulating one-sixth of the national economy was too complicated for Congress to do with specific laws that eliminated ambiguity, then Congress shouldn’t have taken on the task in the first place.
The problem, my dear savoirfaire, is that the “standard”, such as it is, isn’t clear, quantifiable and verifiable. Hence all the complaints.
Did you really think people were complaining just because they “hate” Obama and Democrats? No, they’re complaining because of the lack of clarity which causes massive uncertainty in businesses which causes other huge problems like…including but not limited to, lack of new hiring.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/9/2011 @ 12:37 pm#4 is left without any real guidance. It is saying “You tell us why, and we’ll decide if it’s a good enough reason”.
I suspect that if we were to look at the rejected applications and compared them to some that were approved, we’d find a lot of cases where there was no measurable difference.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 2/9/2011 @ 11:45 am
Sorry, kept trying to finish my comment in between interruptions at work (flex schedules are nice for some reasons but not others 🙂 ) and you said it first, and a lot more concisely. Thanks.
no one you know (325a59) — 2/9/2011 @ 12:39 pm“I was just wondering if HE knew that.”
You’re wondering if the guy who said they’re not really “accounts” knew that the letter you got did not make it an account? Jeez that’s dumb.
“Even apart from the practical ambiguity in ObamaCare, the new system damages the principal of the rule of law. Instead of creating the regulations explicitly so that Americans could understand the costs of compliance, Congress punted most of the regulatory duties to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.”
It’s almost as if you don’t understand how rulemaking and congressional delegation works in our legal system.
“The problem, my dear savoirfaire, is that the “standard”, such as it is, isn’t clear, quantifiable and verifiable. Hence all the complaints.”
You’ll find that the word significant is used quite a bit in our legal system. If I were applying for this, I’d know what I needed to detail, and would show how it was a significant factor for me, including if it would cause me to end the plan or make it unaffordable.
If you’re really concerned about this, then we can spend time looking at the people who were rejected, and their business records that they submitted, and compare it to the ones that got accepted. I hope Darrel Issa personally spends a lot of time going line by line on these.
savoirfaire (e64787) — 2/9/2011 @ 1:22 pmImdw – how many names have you used and been banned under? This is vintage dimwit yammering.
JD (d56362) — 2/9/2011 @ 1:27 pmYou’ll find that the word significant is used quite a bit in our legal system. If I were applying for this, I’d know what I needed to detail, and would show how it was a significant factor for me, including if it would cause me to end the plan or make it unaffordable.
Since I’m not a lawyer, then, you’ll have to explain to me how it is that some companies already have made decisions to, just to give you one early-in-Obamacare-effects example, drop covering all their part time workers, since the effects for them were “significant” yet they received no waivers. And workers suffered as a result. How about their coverage? Why is the “significant” effect on them not enough for some companies to qualify?
no one you know (325a59) — 2/9/2011 @ 1:37 pmNo, mostly I wonder how a guy that claims that SSI doesn’t decrease my net worth can also say it is money that is not allocated directly to me and thus is not actually my money any more.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 1:49 pm“a guy that claims that SSI doesn’t decrease my net worth”
You’ve got it backwards guy.
savoirfaire (c7540f) — 2/9/2011 @ 5:14 pmSometimes the trees are important, other times the fact that there is a forest is all you need.
Before ObamaCare is fully implemented companies are already applying for exemptions. Why would that be if ObamaCare is the answer to all healthcare problems as advertised?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/9/2011 @ 5:23 pmsavoirfaire – You did better defending Planned Parenthood’s indefensible aiding and abetting of child sex slave trafficking.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/9/2011 @ 5:27 pm“savoirfaire – You did better defending Planned Parenthood’s indefensible aiding and abetting of child sex slave trafficking.”
Victims of trafficking having access to abortions is an easy call. Only a monster would deny them that.
savoirfaire (e64787) — 2/9/2011 @ 5:34 pmDimwit – how many names do you plan on getting banned under?
JD (d56362) — 2/9/2011 @ 5:42 pmMD in Philly–thanks for the answer.
As for the bad situation your acquaintances are in, there are a number of possibilities I can envisage that would explain the behavior of the lawyers you mention, but without fully knowing the story, I couldn’t begin to identify the truth here. It is possible the person who is suing them has enough political connections that local attorneys don’t want to tangle with him; it’s possible that the attorneys feel there are worthier or needier clients on whose behalf they want to do pro bono work. The reasons given may simply be polite excuses. I’ve used the “not enough resources” line a few times myself as an excuse to withdraw from representing a client I no longer wanted to be involved with, or avoid representing them in the first place–I could have done it myself if I wanted to, but I did not want the client.
There is also the possibility that, although your acquaintances feel they are being victimized by a SLAPP suit, the suit is not based on a frivolous claim, and it is not really a SLAPP suit. (I’m saying this as a theoretical possibility.) And therein lies the problem–you can’t stop SLAPP suits before hand, although you can sanction people who file them afterwards (by having them pay attorney’s fees, by disciplining the lawyers, etc.) Courts do have the power on their own to throw out baseless law suits. But to stop SLAPP suits you would in effect need to add an extra layer to the court system, one in which prospective plaintiffs are made to demonstrate that they have a valid cause of action (that is, a reasonable case even if in the end they fail at trial). But the American justice system has always adhered to the belief that everyone is literally entitled to their day in court, even if they end up losing. (The right to sue is even embedded in our state constitution here in Florida.)
Comment by no one you know — 2/9/2011 @ 12:37 pm
kishnevi (d785be) — 2/9/2011 @ 6:39 pmPunting the details to regulatory bureaucrats has been standard practice by Congress for years now–not just in health care but in almost everything. That’s why the collection of Federal regulations is the biggest and most important part of Federal laws now.
No, only a monster makes it possible to keep using them as sex slaves, and doesn’t try to call the local cops, doesn’t call the FBI, but instead waits at least a week to contact the next level in the org, and lets them decide what to do.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/9/2011 @ 6:42 pmUnfettered discretion in the executive branch without statutory foundation is itself unconstitutional.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/9/2011 @ 6:46 pmKishnevi-
You’re welcome.
The suit was without merit as it could be. Most of the public statements that were characterized as “slander” were taken out of the school’s own documents on the Web. The claims that the person/school was being investigated by the FBI and state authorities for misuse of funds (both characterized as slander) were both true according to articles published in the Philly Inquirer. Documents submitted to the court had been made up and dated months after their supposed existence to give a false defense.
But the American
justicelegal (FTFY) system has always adhered to the belief that everyone is literally entitled to their day in court, even if they end up losing. (The right to sue is even embedded in our state constitution here in Florida.) Is everyone entitled to an equal defense in court?Yes, in this situation the person pushing the SLAPP had connections of historic proportion in the city, among the politicians, and at least one of the law schools. That was not known at the time when parents first started asking questions, but asking questions was the right thing to do and at least some would have anyway.
I’ll be in favor of lawyers, administrators, and politicians telling doctors how to practice after they agree to let doctors tell them what to do. That’s my final answer, and I’m sticking to it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/9/2011 @ 7:19 pmBut the federal judge in Florida has once again proved that the political influence stretches far behind the political environment. If he cared about ordinary people he would know that the health care bill contains some very good provisions which are already in effect and which are clearly beneficial to many people.
Julie Kinnear (af7dc7) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:07 pmThat is a silly argument, “julie”. Because something helps someone does not make it constitutional. Except is leftist fairyworld.
JD (822109) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:25 pmIf the new standard if whether you care about people, I care about people so let me make the rules for everyone.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:41 pmDRJ – My feelings are important too. Can I use them to write unconstitutional laws? Pretty please?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:48 pmOn Monday, daley. I’m in charge the other days but I like Mondays off.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:57 pmJulie-
Please don’t came in and assume you know “who cares about ordinary people”. Last time I checked, I was an ordinary person. If ObamaCare is so great, let every federal elected official and federal employee be the first to be enrolled to show us just how good it is. If you want to engage in discussion, then engage, don’t make some elitist comment then disappear.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:15 pmJulie, you are saying you’re upset the judge wasn’t influenced by progressive politics of ‘clearly benefiting many’ and ‘caring for ordinary people’.
So it’s just plain stupid to complain that this is proof he was influenced by politics. You have specifically argued for politics to intrude on his decision, while also saying you think this is wrong. So you know you’re a hack.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:23 pm