Page 94 of 122 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #931
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,541

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, I didn't go back and look at it.
    Oh, right. You happened to use EXACTLY the same words I did, but you didn't go back and look at it. Riiiiiiiiiight.


    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.
    Christ. I understood it fine. I dealt with it fine. I quoted what I said. You're ignoring it again.

    And I really couldn't care less what you find "extraordinarily likely" about amicus briefs you haven't read. If you want an actual example of "no basis to claim," there you go. Maybe you should read them all.

    But hey, hack up the thread some more. I find it "extraordinarily likely" that you will.
    “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

  2. #932
    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
    Oh, right. You happened to use EXACTLY the same words I did, but you didn't go back and look at it. Riiiiiiiiiight.
    Holy ****, you really have a bug up your ass about telling people that they didn't do, or didn't intend, or don't think, what they just told you flat out that they did/intend/think.

    Christ. I understood it fine. I dealt with it fine. I quoted what I said. You're ignoring it again.

    And I really couldn't care less what you find "extraordinarily likely" about amicus briefs you haven't read. If you want an actual example of "no basis to claim," there you go. Maybe you should read them all.

    But hey, hack up the thread some more. I find it "extraordinarily likely" that you will.
    No, you didn't address it, and you STILL don't understand it, which is presumably why you can't address it.
    "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

  3. #933
    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

    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?
    No. Everyone deserves medical treatment regardless if they have insurance or not. The problem here is that you are assuming that just because someone doesn't have insurance that automatically means that they won't pay thier medical bill. The other problem here is that you are assuming that the few that don't pay their medical bill (according to the arguements that I read during the SCOTUS hearings it was about 20% of uninsured that didn't pay their bills) are what is mainly driving up the costs of healthcare. They're not. Sure they do to a degree...but minor compared to other things. Like over regulation. When doctors spend more time on filling out forms than they do taking care of patients then I'd say that there is a problem. Medical lawsuits is another big problem. Because of them doctors often perform unnecessary tests just so that they will have a less likely chance of being sued.

    I'm sure that there are other things besides the over regulation and law suits that drive up the cost of healthcare. Why doesn't the government take care of those before putting all the blame on those that are uninsured? If after those are fixed then maybe, if it is still such a huge deal that it is now, we start looking to fixed the uninsured "problem"?
    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

  4. #934
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,541

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Holy ****, you really have a bug up your ass about telling people that they didn't do, or didn't intend, or don't think, what they just told you flat out that they did/intend/think.
    Whatever. I have absolutely no reason to believe you didn't do exactly as I said.


    No, you didn't address it, and you STILL don't understand it, which is presumably why you can't address it.
    Good grief. You're like a Marrakesh street vendor who insists you didn't pay him when yes, you did.

    I have no idea why you play these games or what you get out of it, but it's pretty pathetic.

    Or, perhaps it's you who simply doesn't understand what I wrote. You've never bothered to respond to it, so that's as good a theory as any.
    “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. #935
    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. Everyone deserves medical treatment regardless if they have insurance or not. The problem here is that you are assuming that just because someone doesn't have insurance that automatically means that they won't pay thier medical bill. The other problem here is that you are assuming that the few that don't pay their medical bill (according to the arguements that I read during the SCOTUS hearings it was about 20% of uninsured that didn't pay their bills) are what is mainly driving up the costs of healthcare. They're not. Sure they do to a degree...but minor compared to other things. Like over regulation. When doctors spend more time on filling out forms than they do taking care of patients then I'd say that there is a problem. Medical lawsuits is another big problem. Because of them doctors often perform unnecessary tests just so that they will have a less likely chance of being sued.

    I'm sure that there are other things besides the over regulation and law suits that drive up the cost of healthcare. Why doesn't the government take care of those before putting all the blame on those that are uninsured? If after those are fixed then maybe, if it is still such a huge deal that it is now, we start looking to fixed the uninsured "problem"?
    Everyone can get medical treatment at the local government-supported hospital. No one is being denied medical care, they're just being denied the option to get medical care wherever they want it. If you hold that the government shouldn't be able to force a business arrangement between you and an insurance company, then why should it be able to force a business arrangement between a private hospital and you?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-05-12 at 02:56 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

  6. #936
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Everyone can get medical treatment at the local government-supported hospital. No one is being denied medical care, they're just being denied the option to get medical care wherever they want it. If you hold that the government shouldn't be able to force a business arrangement between you and an insurance company, then why should it be able to force a business arrangement between a private hospital and you?
    Can you show me a hospital that doesn't get government benefits and is still forced to take in people?
    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. #937
    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
    Can you show me a hospital that doesn't get government benefits and is still forced to take in people?
    How do you define "government benefits"? Personally, I don't call reimbursement by the government for services rendered as "getting government benefits".

    Does Lockheed Martin get government benefits by selling Uncle Sam an F-22? Could we force Lockheed Martin to deliver 12 F-22's to Japan with no contract or guarantee of payment?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-05-12 at 03:33 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

  8. #938
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    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.
    While I could give some actual names, that would skip the point. We have statistical evidence, which has been linked, showing uninsured people do engage these services, are treated, and can't pay for it. This is a fact. And only the very, very wealthy, who likely have insurance already, have any real way of opting out. Otherwise, no one else can say that he or she will never need health care. No one else can say they won't need insurance. And when they guess wrong, that cost is passed on to the rest of us.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #939
    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
    Whatever. I have absolutely no reason to believe you didn't do exactly as I said.
    Actually you have a very good reason to believe it: I told you I didn't.
    "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

  10. #940
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    While I could give some actual names, that would skip the point. We have statistical evidence, which has been linked, showing uninsured people do engage these services, are treated, and can't pay for it. This is a fact. And only the very, very wealthy, who likely have insurance already, have any real way of opting out. Otherwise, no one else can say that he or she will never need health care. No one else can say they won't need insurance. And when they guess wrong, that cost is passed on to the rest of us.
    Again you keep using this strawman of unreimbursed expenses. However you have no idea what this amounts to. So I guess the question is the size of this problem worthy of the remedy for a part of the economy which totals $2.7 trillion.

Page 94 of 122 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104 ... 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
  •