• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

AdamT said:
It was intended as a joke to tweak conservatives, who can only see activism when decisions don't go their way.
Click to expand...

You you admit to trolling?

The second part is quite funny as you seem to do the thing you accuse others of (via the 2000 election)...
 
Arbo said:
They wouldn't be. It wouldn't be the first time the court has ruled against the constitution though. And I do not believe you have ever read those documents, as you are unable to provide anything except the words of what other progressives have said.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with what you believe. You've set up a premise where anything that disagrees with you must be wrong. That you can't see the error in this thinking is problematic. Honest, knowledgeable people disagree. Law, language is all too often less clear than we like. That is why people often disagree on what the law says.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: 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.
Click to expand...

It is a normal liberal MO. Be it this, or what 'rich' is, or what is a 'fair amount' or 'fair share' when it comes to taxes. They deal in generalities because it seems they think they can not lose an argument if they do not provide specifics.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not either everything or nothing. There is a minimal level of care that would not include everyone getting everything they want.
Click to expand...

I didn't say want. I said need. And given that everyone gets sick and/or injured and dies, this need is potentially limitless.

having access for everyone for that minimal level would be good for the country, and could be done at a lower cost than having that care treated in the ER, or waiting until the cared needed was for a serious condition that now needs serious and expensive care.
Click to expand...

As above, "minimal" is still potentially limitless.

It's also the case that we already spend three times average of industrialized countries on outpatient care, and TWICE what the #2 country (Sweden) spends, so opening the floodgates of access to outpatient is definitely NOT going to make our overall expenditures go down.

No one suggests that everyone gets everything.
Click to expand...

Course not, but that's the result when you can't bring yourself to tell anybody "sorry." WE CAN'T LET THEM DIE IN THE STREETS!!! leads to being obligated to never neglect anyone. We feel fundamentally entitled to whatever health care we need, and until that changes we're stuck with this runaway cost problem, trying to stick the mounting bill on someone else.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that -- according to opponents of the mandate -- the government could implement an absolutely socialistic single player plan, but for some reason a minor tax penalty to encourage the purcahse of private insurance for private medical care is causing the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves. Are you saying you don't see any disconnect here?
Click to expand...

Yes, they could implement a single payer system, just as they did for SS. I doubt they would have enough support, but they could accomplish it.

And that is 100% different than forcing private citizens to purchase something from private industry. That you can not see that is telling.

What ever happened to all the left's bitching about government collusion with private industry? This is clearly such a thing, but they support THIS government/industry collusion.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not concerned with what you believe. You've set up a premise where anything that disagrees with you must be wrong. That you can't see the error in this thinking is problematic. Honest, knowledgeable people disagree. Law, language is all too often less clear than we like. That is why people often disagree on what the law says.
Click to expand...

Your silly alinsky tatics are both transparent and boring.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And why doesn't that also work for doctors and hospitals? Why can't they demand some form of assurance they will get their money?
Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to buy flood or automobile insurance, and nobody should be forced to by health care insurance either.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I didn't say want. I said need. And given that everyone gets sick and/or injured and dies, this need is potentially limitless.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


As above, "minimal" is still potentially limitless.

It's also the case that we already spend three times average of industrialized countries on outpatient care, and TWICE what the #2 country (Sweden) spends, so opening the floodgates of access to outpatient is definitely NOT going to make our overall expenditures go down.
Click to expand...

As they spend less, as to countries with UHC, how could we be opening up the flood gates by moving that way? I'm not sure I see how. Frankly we have a mind set in this country that all care (not need) is needed, that it is a product, a widget, something to make profit on and not a need being met. This is a larger issue, but eventually cost has to be dealt with by addressing our perception of healthcare.


Course not, but that's the result when you can't bring yourself to tell anybody "sorry." WE CAN'T LET THEM DIE IN THE STREETS!!! leads to being obligated to never neglect anyone. We feel fundamentally entitled to whatever health care we need, and until that changes we're stuck with this runaway cost problem and steuggling to stick the bill on someone else.
Click to expand...

We've already decided we won't let people die due to not getting emergent care. Because of that, we need to have a clear plan on how to handle that. What's wrong here is that we want it both ways, we want the care without paying for it.
 
Grim17 said:
Nobody is forced to buy flood or automobile insurance, and nobody should be forced to by health care insurance either.
Click to expand...

If i want to drive I am. Can anyone opt out of health care? How?
 
AdamT said:
Alright, this multiquote **** getting really annoying. To sum up, I said what I meant and if you think otherwise, more power to you. You think anyone is under the impression that I'm shy about stating my opinion?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I don't think you are, which is why I don't think you meant it as a "joke" until it got you into trouble.

If you're getting frustrated, then you should probably consider what you post more carefully.


"You didn't claim 'same effect' as. You said it meant as."

What does that jabber mean? :lol:
Click to expand...

:shrug: Your equivocation, and your moving goalposts. You earlier said they intended it to be tax. You were even "sure" the record of legislative intent would show it. Now you're simply saying it has the "same effect" as a tax.


Re: your circular logic, this is one of those sad moments where, if someone is too dumb to see the pure dumbness of what he wrote, he's probably also too dumb to understand the explanation.
Click to expand...

This still does not refute me in any way, shape, or form.


And no, you have not distinguished the cases. You made the "no **** Sherlock" observation that the facts were different and that's about it.
Click to expand...

Good grief -- "the facts are totally different, but that doesn't distinguish the case." Anyone with a fourth-grade education can identify how silly that is.

I also said two other categories of things were different about it -- the nature of the laws at issue and the situations they meant to address. Gosh, how could that possibly affect the analysis of things like rational basis? Howsoever, indeed?

If those things do not distinguish a case, then no cases can ever be distinguished.


And re: the mandate, you are right -- it is no more a mandate than Paul Ryan's tax credit. Saying you don't give a **** about it doesn't address the subject.
I'll pull a Harshaw here and say that you really DO give a **** about it, but you have no answer to it and so you're trying to blow it off.
Click to expand...

I don't need to address the Ryan plan, because 1) it has nothing to do with this Supreme Court case, and 2) I never said a word about it, for it or against it. The Ryan plan has zip, nada, nil, zero to do with this argument in any way, shape, or form. Demanding that I "address" it in some way is completely vapid. It's totally irrelevant, period, full stop.
 
Arbo said:
Your silly alinsky tatics are both transparent and boring.
Click to expand...

You likely don't understand his view based on your comment, but I note you did not address any point being made.
 
Boo Radley said:
If i want to drive I am. Can anyone opt out of health care? How?
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, some religious people go to jail for opting out of it.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's not the issue.

Look, if you think the solution to this runaway cost problem HAS to include every citizen getting every healthcare service he needs whenever he needs it, then you're stuck with our current runaway cost problem, and all you're doing is desperately trying to find someone to pay the mounting tab.

But if you want to fix the problem, you have to accept the fact that some people will be denied medical care, because they have no money and they're not insured, and cumulatively we can't fund unlimited health care for all forever.

Option 1 is stick with our current entitlement mentality re: health care. Give everyone everything they need, and then stick the bill on anyone with any money left in the bank.

Option 2 is reestablish the financial relationship between provider and patient and face the harsh-ass reality that not everyone can be treated--everyone can't have everything.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.

I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.

So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
As they spend less, as to countries with UHC, how could we be opening up the flood gates by moving that way? I'm not sure I see how.
Click to expand...

If country X has outpatient care that costs $7, and our country has outpatient care that costs $700, entitling wveryone to outpatient in country X is going to be 100 times easier in country X. In other words, maybe the care was always cheaper there in the first place.

We've already decided we won't let people die due to not getting emergent care. Because of that, we need to have a clear plan on how to handle that. What's wrong here is that we want it both ways, we want the care without paying for it.
Click to expand...

What's wrong is that we DO get it (one way or another) whether we pay for it or not. Thus a main feature of this problem includes out refusal to refuse.
 
AdamT said:
I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.
Click to expand...

Can you define 'grossly overpaid'? Or for that matter 'excessive profits'?

Do you know what the cost is for malpractice insurance here, vs those other countries you love so much? Just out of curiosity.

As for medicine, do those countries have an FDA that has the same time restrictions and costs for bringing medication to the market? Heck, do they have big drug companies that make stuff or is it mostly made here? All questions asked to bring more light to the subject.
 
AdamT said:
I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.

I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.

So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.
Click to expand...

This might buy us some time, assuming our government would ration as you outlined above. But it means going all out toward the government takeover, to which I of course have moral objections, but I admit that a full government takeover with effective rationing of care is not immediately destructive the way our current policies are.
 
Harshaw said:
As a matter of fact, I don't think you are, which is why I don't think you meant it as a "joke" until it got you into trouble.

If you're getting frustrated, then you should probably consider what you post more carefully.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting frustrated. I'm just pointing out that, while you consider yourself to be mind reader, you are not.


:shrug: Your equivocation, and your moving goalposts. You earlier said they intended it to be tax. You were even "sure" the record of legislative intent would show it. Now you're simply saying it has the "same effect" as a tax.
Click to expand...

I guess you must be using some non-standard English dialect, then, because what you wrote was an untillegible garble of words. What you DIDN'T do -- notably -- was back up your assertion about what I said previously.

This still does not refute me in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Circular logic is self refuting. I was simply pointing out your logical error, which you apparently still can't grasp.


Good grief -- "the facts are totally different, but that doesn't distinguish the case." Anyone with a fourth-grade education can identify how silly that is.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a law school education :2wave: knows that simply pointing to factual differences does not distinguish a case without further analysis regarding how and why the factual differences matter vis a vis the legal principle.

I also said two other categories of things were different about it -- the nature of the laws at issue and the situations they meant to address. Gosh, how could that possibly affect the analysis of things like rational basis? Howsoever, indeed? If those things do not distinguish a case, then no cases can ever be distinguished.
Click to expand...

If you're interested in how the cases may and may not be distinguished from a legal perspective you should read the transcripts of the SC arguments where they are discussed at length. Because, gosh and golly, several Supreme Court justices apparently don't share your view that they are distinguishable.

I don't need to address the Ryan plan, because 1) it has nothing to do with this Supreme Court case, and 2) I never said a word about it, for it or against it. The Ryan plan has zip, nada, nil, zero to do with this argument in any way, shape, or form. Demanding that I "address" it in some way is completely vapid. It's totally irrelevant, period, full stop.
Click to expand...

No, I think you just didn't address it because you have no argument. I mean, you're bringing up the tax aspect of the mandate, and this is a tax argument, so how could you really think it's not relevant? If you're getting frustrated you should probably consider what you post more carefully. :lol:
 
AdamT said:
I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.

I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.

So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.
Click to expand...

agree. increasing the supply of doctors is a must, as well.
 
AdamT said:
I'm not getting frustrated.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

Your asterisks say otherwise.


I guess you must be using some non-standard English dialect, then, because what you wrote was an untillegible garble of words. What you DIDN'T do -- notably -- was back up your assertion about what I said previously.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I linked you to exactly what you said.


Circular logic is self refuting. I was simply pointing out your logical error, which you apparently still can't grasp.
Click to expand...

Mostly because it wasn't an error. It was about the nature of the law at issue (criminal), not whether or not that law was valid. The case currently at bar isn't about criminal law.


Anyone with a law school education :2wave:
Click to expand...

:2wave:

knows that simply pointing to factual differences does not distinguish a case without further analysis regarding how and why the factual differences matter vis a vis the legal principle.
Click to expand...

I pointed out examples; you ignored them. The most you said was that the differences weren't "meaningful," declaring them thus without saying why.


If you're interested in how the cases may and may not be distinguished from a legal perspective you should read the transcripts of the SC arguments where they are discussed at length. Because, gosh and golly, several Supreme Court justices apparently don't share your view that they are distinguishable.
Click to expand...

Really?

The Justices said that fact patterns, the types of laws in question, and the situations being addressed by them are not valid points of distinction between cases?

I would like you to provide the transcript where this is said.

And . . . "several justices." Not all?


No, I think you just didn't address it because you have no argument. I mean, you're bringing up the tax aspect of the mandate, and this is a tax argument, so how could you really think it's not relevant?
Click to expand...

What "relevance" does the Ryan plan have to this case?

What "relevance" does the Ryan plan have to any argument I've made?

And what exactly is it that you think I have to address? That it has a similar provision? Why, exactly, does that matter? Spell it out, specifically.
 
Helix said:
agree. increasing the supply of doctors is a must, as well.
Click to expand...

How is that to be accomplished when obamacare ensures less on payouts, and more work on there part?
 
How do you "increase the supply of doctors" if only so many people want to become doctors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom