SCOTUS: ObamaCare Decision

[Starman]

I hope it's overturned, but I also hope it's 6-3 and not 5-4.

Well I am sure in your heart of hearts you hope it's 9-0, but I rather doubt it will be.

 

[RickStain]

I just have a problem with this line of thinking, which seems pretty apparent in this debate:

"Man, health care is expensive and people need it but sometimes don't get it. Instead of addressing that directly, let's just tell hospitals that they have to treat people no matter what. It's a dangerous, poorly conceived extension of government power into the private sector, but we have to do it to fix the problem!"

*a bunch of unintended consequences follow, creating a dozen new problems*

"Man, all those unintended consequences need to be fixed. Let's use a dangerous, poorly conceived extension of government power into the private sector. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences that cause problems later. That almost never happens..."

 

[Azrael]

I just have a problem with this line of thinking, which seems pretty apparent in this debate:

"Man, health care is expensive and people need it but sometimes don't get it. Instead of addressing that directly, let's just tell hospitals that they have to treat people no matter what. It's a dangerous, poorly conceived extension of government power into the private sector, but we have to do it to fix the problem!"

*a bunch of unintended consequences follow, creating a dozen new problems*

"Man, all those unintended consequences need to be fixed. Let's use a dangerous, poorly conceived extension of government power into the private sector. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences that cause problems later. That almost never happens..."

Well, every human enterprise is fraught with unintended consequences. But it's a pretty straightforward moral/ethical argument before it ever gets to "government" intrusions into the "private sector."

Should we let poor people die simply because they're poor?

Once you answer "no," the rest is bookkeeping.

 

[RickStain]

Well, every human enterprise is fraught with unintended consequences. But it's a pretty straightforward moral/ethical argument before it ever gets to "government" intrusions into the "private sector."

Should we let poor people die simply because they're poor?

Once you answer "no," the rest is bookkeeping.

The bookkeeping is kind of important.

 

[User 11148]

Should we let poor people die simply because they're poor?

Once you answer "no," the rest is bookkeeping.

You realize, of course, that even if this keeps some poor people from dying, it's likely that other people, poor or not, will die as a result.

 

[Azrael]

Well, every human enterprise is fraught with unintended consequences. But it's a pretty straightforward moral/ethical argument before it ever gets to "government" intrusions into the "private sector."

Should we let poor people die simply because they're poor?

Once you answer "no," the rest is bookkeeping.

The bookkeeping is kind of important.

Having seen little in the way of supersmart answers from either government or free enterprise in this case for the last forty years, I'm left with where I came in - which is that I'm already paying for lots of strangers' medical care. I'm happy to do it. And if you have a better way for me to do it I'm happy to hear it.

But the ideological standoff, the nitwit half measures and the empty political arguments over constitutionality get us no closer to where we should be.

 

[Tarheel316]

I hope it's overturned, but I also hope it's 6-3 and not 5-4.

What do you think is a workable system?

The Koch brothers and Paul Ryan have one: Can't afford health care? Die.

 

[waterytart]

I hope it's overturned, but I also hope it's 6-3 and not 5-4.

What do you think is a workable system?

Single payer would've accomplished the same thing AND passed constitutional muster. Just sayin'. That's probably the only way to change the status quo.

We both know it can't pass.

I don't think conservatives have grasped how quickly overturning the ACA can be turned into "You broke it, you bought it.". You better have a solution.

 

[RickStain]

Intrade has the mandate at 76.8% to be struck down. That really seems like there's some edge there.

 

[Starman]

I hope it's overturned, but I also hope it's 6-3 and not 5-4.

What do you think is a workable system?

Single payer would've accomplished the same thing AND passed constitutional muster. Just sayin'. That's probably the only way to change the status quo.

We both know it can't pass.

I don't think conservatives have grasped how quickly overturning the ACA can be turned into "You broke it, you bought it.". You better have a solution.

Sure. The solution is to let the insurance companies run the show without any interference from anybody. The miracle of the marketplace.

Stock up on Vaseline.

 

[User 11148]

What do you think is a workable system?

Single payer would've accomplished the same thing AND passed constitutional muster. Just sayin'. That's probably the only way to change the status quo.

We both know it can't pass.

I don't think conservatives have grasped how quickly overturning the ACA can be turned into "You broke it, you bought it.". You better have a solution.

You're starting from the premise that the uninsured not having insurance must be fixed. That may not be the case politically.

 

[RickStain]

Sure. The solution is to let the insurance companies run the show without any interference from anybody. The miracle of the marketplace.

Stock up on Vaseline.

Yeah, this law sure does stick it to insurance companies by making it illegal to not patronize them.

I'm sure your beloved Koch brothers have no intention of using *that* precedent to the advantage of their corporations.

 

[Starman]

Sure. The solution is to let the insurance companies run the show without any interference from anybody. The miracle of the marketplace.

Stock up on Vaseline.

Yeah, this law sure does stick it to insurance companies by making it illegal to not patronize them.

I'm sure your beloved Koch brothers have no intention of using *that* precedent to the advantage of their corporations.

Well, the ACA enforces some conditions on the insurance companies they really don't like, such as the PEC provisions.

In our golden new Kochbros.Com-approved world of unfettered insurance companies, they will cover or not cover whoever they please, at whatever rates they please, for whatever reasons they see fit.

 

[RickStain]

Sure. The solution is to let the insurance companies run the show without any interference from anybody. The miracle of the marketplace.

Stock up on Vaseline.

Yeah, this law sure does stick it to insurance companies by making it illegal to not patronize them.

I'm sure your beloved Koch brothers have no intention of using *that* precedent to the advantage of their corporations.

Well, the ACA enforces some conditions on the insurance companies they really don't like, such as the PEC provisions.

In our golden new Kochbros.Com-approved world of unfettered insurance companies, they will cover or not cover whoever they please, at whatever rates they please, for whatever reasons they see fit.

I don't think there's a corporation in this country that wouldn't exchange a few regulations for legally enforced universal patronization.

 

[User 11148]

If it's retained, the GOP meltdown here will be loud, but not particularly amusing. Those guys just don't do "Entertaining Political Crying" very well.

If it's overturned, the Democrat meltdown here would be a real sight to see. Just Starman would provide many belly laughs. Moddy would have to whack posts and deliver little lectures left and right.

So I guess I'm undecided.

Maybe you should contact Justice Kennedy ... I understand he's pretty good at tiebreaking procedures ... :D

 

[EStreetJoe]

Two points....

1) I think we're all in agreement that they will rule that the suits don't violate the Anti-Injunction Act and can be brought now instead of waiting until the mandate goes into effect in 2014. If they rule that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, then there can be no ruling on anything else and the case will have to be reheard in 2014.

2) If they rule the entire law unconstitutional, what will Republicans campaign on if they can't say "if elected I'll repeal Obamacare"?

 

[RickStain]

If it's retained, the GOP meltdown here will be loud, but not particularly amusing. Those guys just don't do "Entertaining Political Crying" very well.

If it's overturned, the Democrat meltdown here would be a real sight to see. Just Starman would provide many belly laughs. Moddy would have to whack posts and deliver little lectures left and right.

So I guess I'm undecided.

I disagree. The meltdowns can and will be equally entertaining.

The meltdown after Kerry lost was almost worth having to put up with four more years of Bush.

 

[User 11148]

If they rule that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, then there can be no ruling on anything else and the case will have to be reheard in 2014.

That'd be some ****, wouldn't it? Four more years indeed!

 

[MCbamr]

Two points....


2) If they rule the entire law unconstitutional, what will Republicans campaign on if they can't say "if elected I'll repeal Obamacare"?

Seems like I read somewhere that the economy has attracted some attention. And, you know, jobs and stuff.

 

[Zeke12]

What do you think is a workable system?

Single payer would've accomplished the same thing AND passed constitutional muster. Just sayin'. That's probably the only way to change the status quo.

We both know it can't pass.

I don't think conservatives have grasped how quickly overturning the ACA can be turned into "You broke it, you bought it.". You better have a solution.

You're starting from the premise that the uninsured not having insurance must be fixed. That may not be the case politically.

It's polling around 70-15-15/replace,ignore, not sure.

Tart's right. If the GOP gets its wish, it bought itself a gigantic mess.