Unconstitutionalcare

[CarltonBanks]

Looks like another blow to the (Un)affordable Patient Protection Act or whatever the heck it's called.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

 

[Stitch]

Not a fair characterization as this aspect of the law already was on the path to the Supreme Court. Two contrasting opinions. Let the Supremes hash it out.

"The decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court."

 

[EStreetJoe]

Darn conservatives, trying to get the court to push their agenda through instead of trying to legislate change ;D

 

[HejiraHenry]

This thread may not end well, but it could end well in the larger sense.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Looks like another blow to the (Un)affordable Patient Protection Act or whatever the heck it's called.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

If your erection lasts more than four hours, please consult your physician.

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

Yes, the "JUST DIE ALREADY. And while you're at it, we'll take everything you own." plan should remain in place. It's the American way.

 

[Azrael]

The sooner we can get back to the cost of health care rising at five times the cost of living, the better.

 

[deskslave]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

 

[DocTalk]

The sooner we can get back to the cost of health care rising at five times the cost of living, the better.

The cost of health care will continue to rise as long as there is unfettered demand. The health care industry will continue to grow to meet that demand. The abstract solution is easy:

Controlling overall expenditure costs means either decreasing pay for each unit of patient care or decreasing the amount of care provided. The first would require that tuition to train for patient care professions be made more affordable and the cost of supplies decrease; the second would require rationing of health care access

 

[LongTimeListener]

I am outraged. MSN.com is using a picture where Obama looks angry. Bias!!!!!!!!!!

http://dell.msn.com/

 

[CarltonBanks]

libs whining and semi-melting down is funny.

 

[heyabbott]

Looks like another blow to the (Un)affordable Patient Protection Act or whatever the heck it's called.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

If your erection lasts more than four hours, please consult your physician Anne Coulter.

Erection Killer

 

[heyabbott]

The sooner we can get back to the cost of health care rising at five times the cost of living, the better.

The cost of health care will continue to rise as long as there is unfettered demand. The health care industry will continue to grow to meet that demand. The abstract solution is easy:

Controlling overall expenditure costs means either decreasing pay for each unit of patient care or decreasing the amount of care provided. The first would require that tuition to train for patient care professions be made more affordable and the cost of supplies decrease; the second would require rationing of health care access

To what extent do you think the cost of medicine/drugs is responsible for driving up health care costs? Lets take a look at the Pharm Industry.

 

[Birdscribe]

Ignoring Carlton's twisted glee at people being denied health care or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for said health care for the moment, Doc, I have a question.

I know this is a cardinal sin to the AMA, which likes to keep med-school admissions low, but to what extent would increasing the supply of doctors alleviate this problem?

 

[Bubbler]

I say we have no more threads devoted to this until it gets to the SCOTUS. These appeals court decisions mean less than nothing.

Yep.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Ignoring Carlton's twisted glee at people being denied health care or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for said health care for the moment, Doc, I have a question.

I know this is a cardinal sin to the AMA, which likes to keep med-school admissions low, but to what extent would increasing the supply of doctors alleviate this problem?

I'm not ignoring it. That's what he and his ilk are all about.

 

[Bob Cook]

The 11th Circuit Court ruling didn't say the law was unconstitutional. It actually decoupled the payment mandate and said THAT was unconstitutional. So the part that's OK is the coverage, but not the paying for it.

 

[YankeeFan]

Didn't this law pass without the standard language that would allow the rest of it to stand, even if one part was ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Birdscribe]

Ignoring Carlton's twisted glee at people being denied health care or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for said health care for the moment, Doc, I have a question.

I know this is a cardinal sin to the AMA, which likes to keep med-school admissions low, but to what extent would increasing the supply of doctors alleviate this problem?

I'm not ignoring it. That's what he and his ilk are all about.

No argument here, TSP. Aside from pointing that obvious and disturbing fact out, I honestly wanted to get DocT's take on this. I read an interview with a respected money manager in SmartMoney a while back who brought this up. It's been on my mind ever since.

 

[JonnyD]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?