• 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

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.
 
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 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.
:lamo I love it!
 
Last edited:
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. :lol:

Reallllly. :lamo

I said this:

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:

Siiiiiiiigh. It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the case
I give up trying to talk sense to you. :roll:

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.
 
Reallllly. :lamo

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:
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. :roll: 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.
 
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. :roll: 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.
 
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"?
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Well, as far as I know, I'm the only one using auto insurance as an example. The rumblings are, that the court may indeed turn it over to the states. And the two are indeed the same: a government mandate that requires two private parties to form a contract for the good of the whole.
 
The car insurance argument really isn't equatable. You are only forced to buy car insurance if you drive a car (A license to drive a car is a state issued privilege based on an individuals abilities, this license can be revoked if the law is broken). Every living adult woukd be forced to buy health insurance. Driving is not a right, living is. States can regulate the legality of driving and mandate that people have insurance in order to cover damages to another person's vehicle, the governemt is wanting to force all living adults to purchase a product or be fined.
 
The car insurance argument really isn't equatable. You are only forced to buy car insurance if you drive a car (A license to drive a car is a state issued privilege based on an individuals abilities, this license can be revoked if the law is broken). Every living adult woukd be forced to buy health insurance. Driving is not a right, living is. States can regulate the legality of driving and mandate that people have insurance in order to cover damages to another person's vehicle, the governemt is wanting to force all living adults to purchase a product or be fined.

That's true, but that is also what makes it work. You CAN opt out of driving. You CANNOT opt out of healthcare. Otherwise, the argument is the same, the logic the same. The need even greater with healthcare as no one can not be treated for healthcare.
 
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.

Yes, I do. I linked it in another thread(s):

Total medical care expenditures among all of the uninsured in 2004 (including both those without coverage for all or part of the year) are almost $125 billion.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload...uld-full-coverage-add-to-medical-spending.pdf
 
Yes, I do. I linked it in another thread(s):

Total medical care expenditures among all of the uninsured in 2004 (including both those without coverage for all or part of the year) are almost $125 billion.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload...uld-full-coverage-add-to-medical-spending.pdf


You seem yo conflate the total costs of uninsured with the unreimbursed number which can and probably is materially lower. You also use a number that has to have in it the costs of illegals who go to a hospital which would still be a problem under this bill.

A single payer system is the only one that works for what the administration wanted to do. The heavy handed mandate was a lousy answer just to get something done.

There are good points to the bill so it would be unfortunate if the whole thing gets thrown out. Not sure politicians will want to spend the political capital to redo this thing.
 
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?


Article is here.

Agreed. A better argument could be made to strike the mandate down under the Tenth Amendment, than affirm it under the Commerce Clause. IMHO
 
Agreed. A better argument could be made to strike the mandate down under the Tenth Amendment, than affirm it under the Commerce Clause. IMHO

Isn't the commerce clause for INTERSTATE commerce or am I wrong about this. Health care outside of Medicare and veterans care in regulated by the states, is this incorrect?
 
You seem yo conflate the total costs of uninsured with the unreimbursed number which can and probably is materially lower. You also use a number that has to have in it the costs of illegals who go to a hospital which would still be a problem under this bill.

A single payer system is the only one that works for what the administration wanted to do. The heavy handed mandate was a lousy answer just to get something done.

There are good points to the bill so it would be unfortunate if the whole thing gets thrown out. Not sure politicians will want to spend the political capital to redo this thing.

I wouldn't say significantly lower, but if you can show that, fine. But reimbursed by who? If it is through tax dollars, I'm not sure that changes much. But what I do know is that a bandaid is charged out at $16, and the reasoning for that charge is paying for the uninsured. Now, we could call the hospitals liars, and demand they prove that link. But as it is a large part of their rationale, and if you eliminate that rationale, some more explaining will have come if the price doesn't lower.
 
Isn't the commerce clause for INTERSTATE commerce or am I wrong about this. Health care outside of Medicare and veterans care in regulated by the states, is this incorrect?

No argument from me. I just think one argument is better than the other.
 
I wouldn't say significantly lower, but if you can show that, fine. But reimbursed by who? If it is through tax dollars, I'm not sure that changes much. But what I do know is that a bandaid is charged out at $16, and the reasoning for that charge is paying for the uninsured. Now, we could call the hospitals liars, and demand they prove that link. But as it is a large part of their rationale, and if you eliminate that rationale, some more explaining will have come if the price doesn't lower.

As I stated earlier, I have read that the unremimbursed number is $12 billion or 10% of the total. The difference should be largely that people who go to the ER actually pay out of pocket. Remember if you are making $70K and decide to take the risk of self insuring you are responsible for those costs including the hospital having the ability to go after your assets if you do not pay.

Regarding the $16 bandaid I have never heard the excuse is that the key reason for this crazy cost is because some don't pay. Do you think that large insurance companies with buying power are actually haveing to pay that $16? Why can't there be some type of grouping of smaller companies and individuals that could get the buying power given to the large health care companies.
 
Back
Top Bottom