Page 93 of 122 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 930 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #921
    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 Kal'Stang View Post
    No it is not the same thing.

    1: The states can do things that the federal government cannot do. Hence the 10th Amendment.

    2: No one HAS to get a drivers license. The only time that you HAVE to get one is if you drive on public roads. You do not HAVE to get a DL if you do not own a car. You do not HAVE to get a DL if you drive on your own private property. As such no auto insurance is needed.

    I really wish that people would stop using the drivers license/auto insurance BS for a reason to keep the mandate and to allow the federal government in forcing people to buy from private companies. They are NOT the same. In no way shape or form is it the same.
    At one time the only hospitals that would treat patients (even in ER) without proof of insurance were government funded hospitals. Then it was decided if a hospital received any government money, even reimbursement for services covered under Medicare and Medicaid, they would also be required to treat anyone asking for emergency services whether they had insurance or not. Reimbursement for those services is not guaranteed by the government. If this healthcare law is struck down should we also repeal the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone?
    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

  2. #922
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm sorry, but as the uninsured show up, get treatment, and run up a bill, I see no logical way to say they are not engaged.
    Name them. C'mon, give me some actual people.

    This law pertains to individuals. It doesn't pertain to some faceless, nameless group. You cannot say with certainty that anyone -- that is, anyone -- who is uninsured at this moment will show up for treatment without any ability to pay in the future. Or at all. And most of whom FOR whom it's a relatively safe bet will be exempted.

    The idea that they're "already engaged" is dumb, dumb, dumb. It is highly insulting to anyone with a whit of intelligence, and it does violence to any sense of reason or logic. It's a mere bit of sophistry invented to prop up an unconstitutional provision.
    “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

  3. #923
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    At one time the only hospitals that would treat patients (even in ER) without proof of insurance were government funded hospitals. Then it was decided if a hospital received any government money, even reimbursement for services covered under Medicare and Medicaid, they would also be required to treat anyone asking for emergency services whether they had insurance or not. Reimbursement for those services is not guaranteed by the government. If this healthcare law is struck down should we also repeal the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone?
    Ah yes, you're referring to the universal health care bill signed into law by Ronald Reagan.
    "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. #924
    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
    No, you didn't. You made some huge deal out the Ryan plan, worked yourself into a hissy fit because I kept saying it was irrelevant, and when I finally said "fine" and took it on substantively, saying essentially what I just said, you whined something about being done trying to "talk sense" to me and never bothered to respond to what I said.
    Yes, in fact I did but you were apparently so distracted by the word "Ryan" that you were incapable of following the argument. And then, hysterically, you accuse me of running away from it when you repeatedly refused to acknowledge the argument.

    The Justices did not seem interested in the question.
    Is that what your tea leaves tell you?
    "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. #925
    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
    Name them. C'mon, give me some actual people.

    This law pertains to individuals. It doesn't pertain to some faceless, nameless group. You cannot say with certainty that anyone -- that is, anyone -- who is uninsured at this moment will show up for treatment without any ability to pay in the future. Or at all. And most of whom FOR whom it's a relatively safe bet will be exempted.

    The idea that they're "already engaged" is dumb, dumb, dumb. It is highly insulting to anyone with a whit of intelligence, and it does violence to any sense of reason or logic. It's a mere bit of sophistry invented to prop up an unconstitutional provision.
    Are you seriously trying to deny that it happens? You don't believe that uninsured people actually go to ERs and get treatment that they can't pay for? Seriously?

    But even if you're prepared to deny the obvious to that extent, that is only half the equation. If you don't understand that taking healthy people out of the insurance pool affects the rates of everyone else in the pool then you are fundamentally ignorant about insurance. It's the very same reason that everyone is required to contribute to Medicare and Social Security.
    "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

  6. #926
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Are you seriously trying to deny that it happens? You don't believe that uninsured people actually go to ERs and get treatment that they can't pay for? Seriously?

    But even if you're prepared to deny the obvious to that extent, that is only half the equation. If you don't understand that taking healthy people out of the insurance pool affects the rates of everyone else in the pool then you are fundamentally ignorant about insurance. It's the very same reason that everyone is required to contribute to Medicare and Social Security.
    Good grief. How do you not get my point? I never said it doesn't happen. I said you cannot say with certainty that any individual will do it.

    Murder will happen. That doesn't mean you can say John Harrison of Bugtussel, Texas will commit it. Yet this mandate pretty is pretty much the equivalent of doing exactly that.
    “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

  7. #927
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    I predict they will overturn the mandate and let the rest stand. Right-wing radio hosts will praise this judicial activism, but go right back to complaining about judicial activism as soon as any court rules against them. Obama and the Democrats will gain seats in the election and Obama will be re-elected and then use budget reconciliation to amend the law with a public option to replace the mandate. The right will complain about the use of budget reconciliation until they need to use it themselves. Then it will be okay.

    To celebrate the passing of the public option, I'll take my top off at a rally and then Rush Limbaugh see it and will call me a slut.

  8. #928
    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 Luna Tick View Post
    I predict they will overturn the mandate and let the rest stand. Right-wing radio hosts will praise this judicial activism, but go right back to complaining about judicial activism as soon as any court rules against them. Obama and the Democrats will gain seats in the election and Obama will be re-elected and then use budget reconciliation to amend the law with a public option to replace the mandate. The right will complain about the use of budget reconciliation until they need to use it themselves. Then it will be okay.

    To celebrate the passing of the public option, I'll take my top off at a rally and then Rush Limbaugh see it and will call me a slut.
    I love it!
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-05-12 at 01:27 AM.
    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

  9. #929
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Yes, in fact I did but you were apparently so distracted by the word "Ryan" that you were incapable of following the argument. And then, hysterically, you accuse me of running away from it when you repeatedly refused to acknowledge the argument.
    Reallllly.

    I said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    And then your response, simply snipping out and ignoring everything I said about the Ryan plan, was:

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Siiiiiiiigh. It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the case
    I give up trying to talk sense to you.
    And you even went back and looked, and saw this, because you're using my line from that same post:

    Is that what your tea leaves tell you?
    So, you KNOW that's how it went down, and you're just blustering dishonestly here.

    What a joke. What sublime hackery.

    As for the answer, no, it's not what my tea leaves tell me, it's what the transcripts show.
    “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. #930
    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
    Reallllly.

    I said this:



    And then your response, simply snipping out and ignoring everything I said about the Ryan plan, was:



    And you even went back and looked, and saw this, because you're using my line from that same post:



    So, you KNOW that's how it went down, and you're just blustering dishonestly here.

    What a joke. What sublime hackery.

    As for the answer, no, it's not what my tea leaves tell me, it's what the transcripts show.
    No, I didn't go back and look at it. Thankfully my alzheimers isn't so advanced that I can't remember what happened in the last two days. If you had bothered to read the citation I originally provided (and referenced several times) then you (presumably) would have understood the argument. The argument, of course, is that the "mandate" is functionally equivalent to Ryan's tax credit, and therefore it should be upheld under the tax power. As far as I know you have absolutely no basis to claim that the argument hasn't been made in at least one of the 163 amicus briefs that were filed. I think it's extraordinarilly likely that the argument was made in at least one brief (and more likely in multiple briefs), which is all the Court needs if they want to rule on that basis. The administration didn't make that argument because they thought the measure would/should easily pass muster under a commerce clause analysis, and they didn't want to forestall the decision until 2015, which is what would happen if it was determined that the penalty is effectively a tax.

    But thank you for your amateur legal analysis. It's always fascinating to see how those who don't understand the process imagine how it works.
    Last edited by AdamT; 04-05-12 at 01:42 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

Page 93 of 122 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103 ... 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
  •