Page 60 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270110 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #591
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Waaah waaaah waaaah. The tantrum is all very well, but it could be avoided if you don't try to weasel out of what you say. First it's a "joke," then it isn't.
    It was intended as a joke to tweak conservatives, who can only see activism when decisions don't go their way. That's not related to my belief that there may -- or may not -- be activism involved in the final decision. Again, you have a really annoying habit of telling people what the *really* think -- which is of course always a lie because you have no idea what other people *really* think.

    Kinda like the insurance mandate is "clearly" meant to be a tax, then it's a "clearly" a regulation of interstate commerce. (Who knows how many times that's gone back and forth.) You latch on to whatever you think will help you most at the moment.
    Again, these are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion the penalty clearly has the function of a tax, and the mandate also falls within Congress' power to regulate interestate commerce.

    Sure. Easily. The fact patterns are nothing alike, especially in Raich, where the grower was doing something illegal.
    Wow, what an awesome bit of circular reasoning. The grower was only doing something illegal if Congress had the authority to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause.

    Nor did either case involve a law which required the purchase of anything and fines if that item wasn't purchased (not to mention exempting a lot of people from it altogether). Not to mention that the congressional schemes involved were meant to address extremely different sets of circumstances and meant to effect very different outcomes from what we have today. The analysis of everything is different.
    These are distinctions without a difference. In Raich, the Court -- including Scalia -- held that Congress has the power to regulate activity that is not interstate OR commerce in order to effect it's broader power to regulate interstate commerce. In Wickard, the Court effectively held that a farmer had to purchase wheat, as opposed to growing it himself. Now, Congress didn't flat-out *say* that the farmer had to purchase wheat, but the end result of their regulation meant that he was forced to purchase wheat. In other words, Congress forced the farmer to engage in commerce and the Court said, "good on you, you have that power under the interstate commerce clause."

    And again, the unelected Court is supposed to give DEFERENCE to legislation that was lawfully passed by our elected representatives and our elected President.
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-29-12 at 02:24 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #592
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    The problem with the current system (with our without Congresscare) is that people can be still turned away for much needed medical care
    If that's the problem, then the only solution is one where no one can be turned away for needed medical care under any circumstances. This is pie-in-the-sky entitlement thinking.

    About 2% of the nation's uninsured could afford to insure themselves. The rest can't afford it. If you mandate that these 2% of the uninsured fork it over, and entitle the other 98% to all the health care they'll ever need, that means costs that are already prohibitively high will rise further.

  3. #593
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    If that's the problem, then the only solution is one where no one can be turned away for needed medical care under any circumstances. This is pie-in-the-sky entitlement thinking.

    About 2% of the nation's uninsured could afford to insure themselves. The rest can't afford it. If you mandate that these 2% of the uninsured fork it over, and entitle the other 98% to all the health care they'll ever need, that means costs that are already prohibitively high will rise further.
    How on earth do you conclude that universal coverage is a pie-in-the-sky idea? Virtually every advanced country other than the U.S. has universal health care, and they manage to provide it at about half the cost per capita that we do.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #594
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It was intended as a joke to tweak conservatives, who can only see activism when decisions go their way. That's not affected by my belief that there may -- or may not -- be activism involved in the final decision. Again, you have a really annoying habit of telling people what the *really* think -- which is of course always a lie because you have no idea what other people *really* think.
    I know weaseling when I see it. You refuse to define judicial activism, after repeated attempts to get you do so (all of your answers were sarcastic), so it perfectly well stands to reason that you wish it to remain purposely undefined.

    And nothing in the context of your original post indicates that you meant it as a "joke" at all.

    So tell me, then, as I've asked before numerous times . . . if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, how, specifically, is it judicial activism? Can you answer that head on? It will require you to state what judicial activism is, then it will require you to show how the ruling would fit that definition.

    So . . . ?


    Again, these are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion the penalty clearly has the function of a tax, and the mandate also falls within Congress' power to regulate interestate commerce.
    No, you said it was "clearly" "intended" to BE a tax. The power to tax is entirely separate from the interstate commerce power. Tell me again how what I quoted here isn't a setup for the mandate to be whatever you want it to be at the time you want it to be so?

    You have never provided any evidence from a) the statute, or b) from the Congressional record that it was meant to be a tax, though you did say it was "clear." Again, should not be a problem if it IS so clear.


    Wow, what an awesome bit of circular reasoning. The grower was only doing something illegal if Congress had the authority to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause.
    Wow, so what? The point is that it was entirely different issue under an entirely different legal construct. You wanted me to distinguish it; that's how.

    These are distinctions without a difference.
    Says you.

    But in the real world of jurisprudence, it's three different categories of distinction.

    In Raich, the Court -- including Scalia -- held that Congress has the power to regulate activity that is not interstate OR commerce in order to effect it's broader power to regulate interstate commerce.
    In a fact pattern which couldn't be more different. We've been over this. You wanted "distinguished"; that's about as "distinguished" as it gets.


    In Wickard, the Court effectively held that a farmer had to purchase wheat, as opposed to growing it himself. Now, Congress didn't flat-out *say* that the farmer had to purchase wheat, but the end result of their regulation meant that he was forced to purchase wheat.
    He wasn't fined if he didn't. He wasn't required to buy anything. And even if he were, it's about his specific trade; it doesn't affect him at all otherwise. The mandate requires you to purchase insurance as a condition for living.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 03-29-12 at 02:35 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #595
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    How on earth do you conclude that universal coverage is a pie-in-the-sky idea?
    We can't afford it as it is currently, and there aren't that many more people out there who can contribute to the pool, but there are a lot who will need to take from it, especially as the Medicare population swells.

    Virtually every advanced country other than the U.S. has universal health care, and they manage to provide it at about half the cost per capita that we do.
    How many of these countries had astronomical health care costs AND a huge proportion of uninsured people right before they implemented a plan to entitle them all to it? Maybe countries whose costs have always been much lower were thus more able to implement UHC. How many of those countries had just doubled their debt in 5 years?

    "Sweden does it!" fails to demonstrate that we can entitle our entire population to the priciest care in the universe and then somehow pay for it.

  6. #596
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    I am currently reading through the Day 2 proceedings here and I just gotta say...I LOVE IT! So far anyways.

    Supreme court Oral Arguements
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #597
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I know weaseling when I see it.
    Translation: I know what you were thinking better than you do.

    Analysis: I said what I meant and you are a lying about what's inside my head for some twisted reason.


    So tell me, then, as I've asked before numerous times . . . if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, how, specifically, is it judicial activism? Can you answer that head on? It will require you to state what judicial activism is, then it will require you to show how the ruling would fit that definition.

    So . . . ?
    I just answered that at great length. Try to keep up.


    No, you said it was "clearly" "intended" to BE a tax. The power to tax is entirely separate from the interstate commerce power. Tell me again how what I quoted here isn't a setup for the mandate to be whatever you want it to be at the time you want it to be so?

    You have never provided any evidence from a) the statute, or b) from the Congressional record that it was meant to be a tax, though you did say it was "clear." Again, should not be a problem if it IS so clear.
    I said that? You better find the quote if you want me to respond to it, because we all know that you make **** up as you go along.

    In any case, yes, the penalty has the same effect as a tax. Ezra Kline wrote a short piece today saying that it is functionally nearly identical to the tax credit in Ryan's plan:

    The tax credit, meanwhile, is essentially indistinguishable from the mandate. Ryan’s plan offers a $2,300 refundable tax credit to individuals and a $5,700 credit to families who purchase private health insurance. Of course, tax credits aren’t free. In effect, what Ryan’s plan does is raises taxes and/or cut services by the cost of his credit and then rebate the difference to everyone who signs up for health insurance. It’s essentially a roundabout version of the individual mandate, which directly taxes people who don’t buy health insurance in the first place.

    “It’s the same,” says William Gale, director of the Tax Policy Center. “The economics of saying you get a credit if you buy insurance and you don’t if you don’t are not different than the economics of saying you pay a penalty if you don’t buy insurance and you don’t if you do.”

    Individual Mandate Is Ryan Tax Credit by Other Name - Bloomberg

    Wow, so what? The point is that it was entirely different issue under an entirely different legal construct. You wanted me to distinguish it; that's how.
    Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all week!

    Says you.
    Yeah, you and what army?!

    But in the real world of jurisprudence, it's three different categories of distinction.
    In the real world of jurisprudence, which is obviously foreign to you, no two cases are identical. You distinguish the cases by pointing out MEANINGFUL distinctions.

    He wasn't fined if he didn't. He wasn't required to buy anything. And even if he were, it's about his specific trade; it doesn't affect him at all otherwise. The mandate requires you to purchase insurance as a condition for living.
    As a practical matter he was required to buy wheat, because he needed wheat and Congress told him that he couldn't grow his own. The mandate, of course, does NOT require anyone to purchase insurance. IF you meet the income guidelines then it gives you the option to buy insurance or else pay a tax penalty -- very much like Ryan's plan as noted above.
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-29-12 at 03:45 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #598
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I know weaseling when I see it. You refuse to define judicial activism, after repeated attempts to get you do so (all of your answers were sarcastic), so it perfectly well stands to reason that you wish it to remain purposely undefined.

    And nothing in the context of your original post indicates that you meant it as a "joke" at all.

    So tell me, then, as I've asked before numerous times . . . if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, how, specifically, is it judicial activism? Can you answer that head on? It will require you to state what judicial activism is, then it will require you to show how the ruling would fit that definition.

    So . . . ?




    No, you said it was "clearly" "intended" to BE a tax. The power to tax is entirely separate from the interstate commerce power. Tell me again how what I quoted here isn't a setup for the mandate to be whatever you want it to be at the time you want it to be so?

    You have never provided any evidence from a) the statute, or b) from the Congressional record that it was meant to be a tax, though you did say it was "clear." Again, should not be a problem if it IS so clear.




    Wow, so what? The point is that it was entirely different issue under an entirely different legal construct. You wanted me to distinguish it; that's how.



    Says you.

    But in the real world of jurisprudence, it's three different categories of distinction.



    In a fact pattern which couldn't be more different. We've been over this. You wanted "distinguished"; that's about as "distinguished" as it gets.




    He wasn't fined if he didn't. He wasn't required to buy anything. And even if he were, it's about his specific trade; it doesn't affect him at all otherwise. The mandate requires you to purchase insurance as a condition for living.

    You are aleady required to pay Social Security and Medicare so how is this any different? Here is some of Charles Freid's (Reagan's Solicitor General) thoughts on the hearings.


    EK: It also seemed that the framing of the question from the conservative justices was quite bad for the Obama administration. Once you’re talking about activity/inactivity distinctions, is the case already lost?

    CF: Activity and inactivity is not in the Constitution. Now, there are millions of cases that talk about the power to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, from which Randy Barnett drew the conclusion inactivity is not included. It just hadn’t come up!

    And if 95 percent of them are in that market every five years, they’re in it. They haven’t put that off. They’ve gone to a health-care clinic. They’ve procured a prescription for a prescription drug. Ninety-five percent of the population! So where’s the inactivity?

    The other thing is I think it’s Justice Kennedy who said this fundamentally changes the relationship of the citizen to the government. That’s an appalling piece of phony rhetoric. There is an important change between the government and the system. It was put in place in 1935, with Social Security. And it said everyone has to pay into a retirement fund, and an unemployment fund. It was done when Medicare came in in the ’60s. That’s a fundamental change. But this? This is simply a rounding out in a particular area of a relation between the citizen and the government that’s been around for 70 years.
    Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.’ - The Washington Post

  9. #599
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Translation: I know what you were thinking better than you do.

    Analysis: I said what I meant and you are a lying about what's inside my head for some twisted reason.
    No, I'm making an assessment of what you said, taking all context into consideration.


    I just answered that at great length. Try to keep up.
    Seeing as you've never defined "judicial activism," no, you haven't.



    I said that? You better find the quote if you want me to respond to it, because we all know that you make **** up as you go along.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060332723

    "We all" and "know" must be pretty loosely-defined terms.


    In any case, yes, the penalty has the same effect as a tax.
    You didn't claim "same effect" as. You said it meant as.


    Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all week!
    It doesn't say how I'm wrong.


    Yeah, you and what army?!
    I made a perfectly fine statement; this is a highly childish response.


    In the real world of jurisprudence, which is obviously foreign to you, no two cases are identical. You distinguish the cases by pointing out MEANINGFUL distinctions.
    And I did. Three whole categories of them. All you've done is dismiss them as "meaningless." How convenient.



    As a practical matter he was required to buy wheat, because he needed wheat and Congress told him that he couldn't grow his own. The mandate, of course, does NOT require anyone to purchase insurance.


    No, it only fines them if they don't. Hey, you're not required to obey the speed limit; you only have to pay a penalty if you don't.



    Oh, and it's not a mandate, it's a suggestion.




    IF you meet the income guidelines then it gives you the option to buy insurance or else pay a tax penalty -- very much like Ryan's plan as noted above.
    I don't give the first **** about Ryan's plan; that's a silly strawman.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 03-29-12 at 04:02 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #600
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    We can't afford it as it is currently, and there aren't that many more people out there who can contribute to the pool, but there are a lot who will need to take from it, especially as the Medicare population swells.

    How many of these countries had astronomical health care costs AND a huge proportion of uninsured people right before they implemented a plan to entitle them all to it? Maybe countries whose costs have always been much lower were thus more able to implement UHC. How many of those countries had just doubled their debt in 5 years?

    "Sweden does it!" fails to demonstrate that we can entitle our entire population to the priciest care in the universe and then somehow pay for it.
    What difference does it make what they were doing right before they implemented universal coverage? You mean from a political perspective? Or in terms of how difficult it would be to implement?

    Unfortunately it's politically impossible at the moment, which should be obvious from the wild "end times", fire-and-brim-strone rhetoric that's surrounded the very modest AHCA proposals. Sooner or later we are going to have to do it, or else it's going to bankrupt us. Right now we're standing in a tunnel and a train is bearing down on us, and half us have our thumbs up our asses muttering incoherent jibberish about "socialism".
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •