Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[Neally]

You still haven't provided evidence that supports your claim.

Sorry I won't be scanning and posting my premiums and policy before and after the insurance company was force to add the coverages mandated by Obamacare.

"Attributed" by whom? That passive voice construction masks, I think, the fact that all you've provided is that insurance companies who raised their rates claim that Obamacare is somehow the cause.

They clearly broke out the portion directly tied to Obamacare. This is just one citation by the way. There are more if you'd bother to investigate. It's really not controversial or debatable. Stuff costs money. The insurance companies have been forced to add stuff to the policies. Those costs are passed to the consumer. The Obamacare fans simply ignore this or somehow don't make the connection, but instead focus on all the wonderful new goodies we now get. Goodies that many of us don't want or need.

 

[JamesDillon]

4 of the 9 current justices were not involved in that decision so any link between the the current case and Bush V. Gore is more than a little tenuous, in my opinion.

And by the way, it wouldn't have mattered had that court ruled in favor of Gore

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/u...d-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

Both articles agree that even had the limited recounts that were stopped by the court been allowed to continue it would not have changed the outcome.

Defenders of Bush v. Gore often play the "it didn't matter" card, but I don't see how that's a defense of the Court's nakedly unprincipled resolution of that case. You are right, though, that we really can't say that today's Court is the same Court that decided Bush v. Gore; moreover, I wouldn't even say that that one decision is a fair representation of the old Rehnquist Court, either. It was a low point in the Court's history, hardly representative of the whole.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm just getting in a post so I can bookmark this thread because my indisputable opinion is that it doesn't matter what the decision(s) is(are), this will become a contentious thread. Give us something to argue about until the first convention kicks off.

 

[DC]

i wonder if the Deathpanels are constitutional.

 

[BenBurch]

I'm just getting in a post so I can bookmark this thread because my indisputable opinion is that it doesn't matter what the decision(s) is(are), this will become a contentious thread. Give us something to argue about until the first convention kicks off.

Your an optimist. The guys who think the poor should hurry up and die so they can have life unburdened by 2/3 of humanity won't let this go no matter what the decision is.

And the people who think that human beings ALL deserve a decent life won't let it go either.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry I won't be scanning and posting my premiums and policy before and after the insurance company was force to add the coverages mandated by Obamacare.

And they'll be "forced" to accept a bunch of new customers if the mandate is allowed to stand. But as I pointed out, they're also not allowed to jack up premiums for no reason whatsoever, as they could have in the past.

 

[BenBurch]

And they'll be "forced" to accept a bunch of new customers if the mandate is allowed to stand. But as I pointed out, they're also not allowed to jack up premiums for no reason whatsoever, as they could have in the past.

That sort just thinks we are all parasites and wants us all dead ASAP. That is the most of reason for this for most of those who oppose it on the Right - its not the expense, it's hatred.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They clearly broke out the portion directly tied to Obamacare.

No, they put that portion of the bar graph in a different color and said this is how much of the premium they attribute to changes due to the ACA. This is not evidence that it's so.

This is just one citation by the way. There are more if you'd bother to investigate.

Oh--well, that's a reasonable response to a request for evidence to support an unsubstantiated claim.

It's really not controversial or debatable. Stuff costs money. The insurance companies have been forced to add stuff to the policies.

The insurance company also makes profits (as do insurance agents), and they also spend a boatload of money on marketing. Where do you think *that* money comes from?

Those costs are passed to the consumer. The Obamacare fans simply ignore this or somehow don't make the connection, but instead focus on all the wonderful new goodies we now get. Goodies that many of us don't want or need.

Yes, calling the reasonable standards of minimum essential coverage (so that people who think they are insured are actually insured) "goodies" is just so much spin. And the "many of us don't want or need" argument only works if you treat our national health care crisis from a rugged individualist point of view.

 

[BenBurch]

Insurance is a certifiable waste of health care dollars.

I know this because I know some insurance agents who are multi-millionaires.

Middle men are very large saps on the system.

 

[eeyore1954]

Looking forward to my rates dropping if Obamacare gets repealed since they went up as a direct result of it passing.

I am against the health care law but mine had been going up dramatically long before Barack Obama became a household name.

 

[eeyore1954]

The current, politicized court will over turn this, and will do so as close to the election as they can manage.

No court that voted the way they did in Bush V. Gore can possible claim any kind of objectivism.

Are you sure it should not be "No court that votes in a way that JJ disagrees with can claim any kind of objectivism"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am against the health care law but mine had been going up dramatically long before Barack Obama became a household name.

Exactly. And the idea that premiums will drop if the ACA is struck down today is silly.

 

[Puppycow]

There are currently over 13000 articles about the pending decision on the Google News feed.
A lot of interest for a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Brown]

I have made the point before, but I will make it again: I certainly hope that people will read the actual opinions before spouting off at length about them, and not rely upon media sources or pundits to tell them about what the decision means. Damn, there sure are a lot of really uninformed people who hold strong (and often loud) opinions based upon false premises or general ignorance, and it seems a lot of that is due to relying upon what someone else said and not reading the damned ruling itself.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I believe they are all political hacks. If non-constitutional scholars can predict the voting outcome simply based on the political views of the justices, it is hard to say that one side is political and the other side has it right.

I don't know if it is necessarily possible to have a constitutional interpretation far different from your political views. If the latter doesn't feed the former, it seems the former would lead to the latter simply to minimize dissonance.

The one outlier is Kennedy. I personally don't feel that he cares more than others. I think his political views are likely just an outlier.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have made the point before, but I will make it again: I certainly hope that people will read the actual opinions before spouting off at length about them, and not rely upon media sources or pundits to tell them about what the decision means. Damn, there sure are a lot of really uninformed people who hold strong (and often loud) opinions based upon false premises or general ignorance, and it seems a lot of that is due to relying upon what someone else said and not reading the damned ruling itself.

I usually read the actual opinion before spouting off at length. (I notice the news media are still sometimes giving wrong descriptions of the Arizona decision --though others are pretty accurate).

But that doesn't always stop me from being uninformed or reasoning on false premises!

 

[JamesDillon]

I believe they are all political hacks. If non-constitutional scholars can predict the voting outcome simply based on the political views of the justices, it is hard to say that one side is political and the other side has it right.

I don't know if it is necessarily possible to have a constitutional interpretation far different from your political views. If the latter doesn't feed the former, it seems the former would lead to the latter simply to minimize dissonance.

Or perhaps it's just the case that political views often correlate with sincere beliefs about constitutional interpretation-- and that that correlation is made even tighter by the appointment system that attempts to guarantee (with some notable failures) that an appointee's views are throughly in line with those of the appointing party? I think the distinction between law and politics is particularly thin in constitutional matters, but that's not necessarily to say that it's nothing more than open partisanship, either.

The one outlier is Kennedy. I personally don't feel that he cares more than others. I think his political views are likely just an outlier.

Kennedy is the hackiest of the bunch. He doesn't even try to justify his views by anything more than his own pompous and often meaningless rhetoric. Even when I agree with him I can't stand to read him.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Or perhaps it's just the case that political views often correlate with sincere beliefs about constitutional interpretation-- and that that correlation is made even tighter by the appointment system that attempts to guarantee (with some notable failures) that an appointee's views are throughly in line with those of the appointing party? I think the distinction between law and politics is particularly thin in constitutional matters, but that's not necessarily to say that it's nothing more than open partisanship, either.

A much better way of putting it.

 

[Brown]

I usually read the actual opinion before spouting off at length. (I notice the news media are still sometimes giving wrong descriptions of the Arizona decision --though others are pretty accurate).

The Arizona case resulted in many laughable examples of people spouting off without knowing what they were talking about. Jon Stewart made fun of the fact that various television pundits and political leaders could not even agree on who "won" and who "lost."

 

[JamesDillon]

Scotusblog reporting that "the individual mandate survives as a tax."