Page 73 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #721
    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

    Well, finished reading Day 2 of the arguements. I must say Mr. Carvin kicked butt in it. Even some of the judges that people believe are going to vote in favor of the mandate were concedeing his points.

    Mr. Verrilli on the other hand didn't do so hot. In fact I'd call it disasterous.
    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

  2. #722
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Does everyone with insurance coverage now get "every healthcare service he needs whenever he needs it"?? Of course not.
    Show up to a hospital, get whatever help you need. ER, Critical Care, Psychiatric, Medical-Surgical... don't even have to be insured. Doctors have to provide what you immediately need.

    At some point either the patient runs out of money or the plan reaches it's limit - or both.
    And then they just die? Or they join some other thing that pays for their care?

  3. #723
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, obviously it's perfectly legal for an insurance (or any) company to drop you at the end of your policy period. Generally that only happens if you have an individual (as opposed to group) coverage.
    I have a feeling you are talking about two very different things. Are you talking about people that purchase a term health policy so that they can recieve lower rates? Meaning it's good for x number of years. Then at the end of x number of years both parties decide if they want to continue? Yes, those can be non-renewed. The customer made a choice to purchase something that apparently didn't fit their needs. It's clearly spelled out in the contract. However, other individual policies can not be non-renewed due to an individual getting an illness. Group policies can never be non-renewed for an individual due to sickness.

    If you have employer-provided coverage you can have the same problem if you are fired, change jobs for another reason, or simply because you're too sick to work. You can continue coverage for awhile under COBRA, but then you and your preexisting condition are on your own.
    HIPPA addressed alot of what you are talking about. The pre-ex period will not start over. My mother had mitral valve replacement (heart surgery) while working for company X. She lost her job there after the surgery, got a job with company Y and was fully covered for the heart issue without having to restart the pre-ex period - HIPPA was a pretty good law - If they are too sick to work, they will be covered through the government - isn't that what you want? Everyone to be covered by the government?

  4. #724
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    Hillary CLinton for example-failed the DC bar exam but passed the far far easier Arkansas exam-one of the reasons why she followed Bill to a state she considered backwards
    Probably because she went to such a craptastic law school.

    Can't imagine why she took the DC bar. Everyone knows that DC is one of the most difficult bars and you can waive in from MD or VA.
    "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

  5. #725
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Show up to a hospital, get whatever help you need. ER, Critical Care, Psychiatric, Medical-Surgical... don't even have to be insured. Doctors have to provide what you immediately need.

    And then they just die? Or they join some other thing that pays for their care?
    "what you immediately need" is not what you said earlier nor did your previous posts seem to imply you were talking about emergency care. I'm pretty sure organ transplants, for example, are not emergency care.

    I would assume if they're laying in a hospital bed with a heart problem, out of money and insurance coverage, that nothing they "join" is going to cover staying in the hospital longer or any other procedures for the heart problem.

    And, no, I didn't buy the "let the banks fail" line in 2008, either. I agree things need to change. If TD is right and medical schools are a limiting factor then that seems like a good place to start. Why the hell are we limiting the number of doctors? That's just insane. Other problems are universal America issues - like the cost of college.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #726
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,677

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Probably because she went to such a craptastic law school.

    Can't imagine why she took the DC bar. Everyone knows that DC is one of the most difficult bars and you can waive in from MD or VA.
    Yeah DC, Mass, NY, California, Ill, Ohio are among the toughest when I took the Ohio bar, the CJ of the Ohio Supreme Court's son was taking it too. He was pretty dull and the pass rate that year was the highest ever-they wanted to give him a fifty fifty chance flunking only 9 percent!!!. but interestingly, enough points were awarded for everyone to pass-most of those who flunked (you needed a 270/360) flunked by one to 4 points while lots of us were getting 330-345 scores. (345 that year got 7th out of 1200 or so)

    24 essays (1 hour for two essay questions) and the 200 question MSBE

  7. #727
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,568

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Not that I saw.
    Then you're blind. Links are always in bold.


    So you really have no understanding of the case at all. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Fed law was criminal. Whether or not the Fed law could stand was solely a function of whether it had the power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. That's because the federal government has no inherent police powers. They can only exercise those powers if it's incidental to another power -- in this case the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, your reasoning was completely circular and without merit.
    The nature of the law was different than the on this case, ducky. You can keep pretending I was arguing something other than I was, but it will never mean that I was.




    Tell me you don't actually have a law degree. Or tell me you do -- I wouldn't believe you anyway.
    Pfff. Couldn't possibly care less what you believe. But at yours, did they not teach you how to maintain a coherent and consistent point throughout an argument? If not, I'd ask for your tuition back. If so, were you absent on those days?

    Or is equivocation and weaseling simply the style of argumentation you plan to employ in your work?

    Anyway, if you don't believe it, then it must sting pretty badly, getting schooled on Bush v. Gore.


    Skipping the repetitive junk....
    It's all been repetitive, tedious, and tiresome, sparky. "But but but . . . is not!!!" is pretty much all I've gotten from you for the last several go-arounds.


    The Ryan plan, as the article I cited pointed out, demonstrates how the mandate is funtionally the same as a tax, which is obviously relevant to the AIA argument. As you obviously didn't read ... or understand ... it, I'll give you the nutshell version: Ryan's plan imposes a large tax on everyone, which can be eliminated via a tax credit if someone can show that they have health insurance. That, in effect, imposes a larger penalty on the uninsured than the AHCA penalty, "forcing" everyone to buy insurance in exactly the same way (except moreso).
    Yes. I understood that perfectly fine. It's still absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the disposition case, and to any word I've said, thus, I don't give a ****. People can propose similar laws all day long; it has no bearing on this case and has no bearing on anything I said. It's a proposal, nothing more, period. It has no effect on anything, at all. And if it works the same, then hey, it should go down in flames, too.

    What, have you got it in your head that I'm some kind of Republican, that Ryan is my hero, and I support his proposal? Therefore I have a duty to reconcile it in some way? Get ready, because you're going to be hearing this objection quite a bit if you try this kind of argument in court: "assumes facts not in evidence."
    “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

  8. #728
    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
    Yes. I understood that perfectly fine. It's still absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the disposition case, and to any word I've said, thus, I don't give a ****. People can propose similar laws all day long; it has no bearing on this case and has no bearing on anything I said. It's a proposal, nothing more, period. It has no effect on anything, at all. And if it works the same, then hey, it should go down in flames, too.

    What, have you got it in your head that I'm some kind of Republican, that Ryan is my hero, and I support his proposal? Therefore I have a duty to reconcile it in some way? Get ready, because you're going to be hearing this objection quite a bit if you try this kind of argument in court: "assumes facts not in evidence."
    More proof that you don't have a law degree ... or possibly any degree. You don't think it's relevant that they could have structured the penalty differently, with exactly the same effect, and its constitutionality would never be questioned? I can't imagine what would be more relevent.

    The nature of the law was different than the on this case, ducky. You can keep pretending I was arguing something other than I was, but it will never mean that I was.
    Ducky? What are you, twelve?

    The "nature of the law" had absolutely nothing to do with the commerce clause inquiry.

    To put all this in perspective, Charles Fried -- Reagan's former Solicitor General -- has doused the wingnut justices in urine:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...3VgS_blog.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...5wiS_blog.html
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-30-12 at 01:20 AM.
    "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

  9. #729
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,568

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    More proof that you don't have a law degree ... or possibly any degree. You don't think it's relevant that they could have structured the penalty differently, with exactly the same effect, and its constitutionality would never be questioned? I can't imagine what would be more relevent.
    Siiiiiiiigh. It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the case, nor anything I argued. How many times do you need that repeated?

    It's not even relevant as a hypothetical, because it would be an exercise of the tax power, not the commerce power. If you want to make an argument that there's a constitutional way to do the same thing, well, lah-dee-dah, then I guess that's what they should have done. But they didn't. The case at bar is about what they did, not what they could have done.

    Never mind that it's only your opinion that it does the "same thing," anyway. There are those who argue that tax deductions are government handouts, because they mathematically work out the same. But they're not. And neither is exemption from a tax (or a tax credit) the same thing as avoiding a penalty.


    The "nature of the law" had absolutely nothing to do with the commerce clause inquiry.
    Of course it did; you're merely being obtuse. But the point was that the laws between cases were entirely dissimilar, and yes, that in part distinguishes the cases.
    “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. #730
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    "what you immediately need" is not what you said earlier nor did your previous posts seem to imply you were talking about emergency care. I'm pretty sure organ transplants, for example, are not emergency care.
    Any time someone needs hospital care, they get it. If they run out of money they get hooked into something else or the hospital writes it off. But anyone showing up at a hospital needing health care gets it, and not just in the ER either.

    I would assume if they're laying in a hospital bed with a heart problem, out of money and insurance coverage, that nothing they "join" is going to cover staying in the hospital longer
    Covered or not, private insurance or taxpayer-funded government health care... patients only stay in the hospital as long as is medically necessary. It's the same standard for everyone.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 03-30-12 at 01:38 AM.

Page 73 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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