SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

[Vidi]

We have similiar problems with car insurance. People choose to drive without it. The judges sometime levy a fine against them, but other times do not. Something about hurting the poor. So I guess the government is really just targeting lower middle class people in this healthcare law. Forcing them into poverty or underwriting the costs of coverage for the poor. You should be so proud Mr. Obama.

Misplaced blame is the first sign of blind partisanship.

Thank the Mary Browns of the country. Hypocrits who claim they don't need health insurance, then ask fit debt forgiveness when they can't take care of their responsibilities.

In other words, you bums want FREE HEALTH CARE!

Damn, I miss REAL Conservatives, who truly believed in personal responsibility. These NeoCons

Pointing out reality is not partisan. I have health insurance which I pay for in part and my employer the other. Enlarging Medicaid would seem to be your free health care. Who decided to do that again?

I agree 110%, my freind. Pointing out reality is NOT partisan.

But who's reality? Mine and yours? We who pay our premiums and get coverage. You know, responsible people.

Or people like Mary Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Supreme Court case, who is picking our pocket for her free health care while whining that if this law stands she and her husband will have to actually be adults and be responsible for themselves.

Because from where I'm sitting, the reality of the situation is a bunch of people whining that they won't get free stuff anymore are attacking the Presidents health care plan.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every time a Mary Brown doesn't pay her bill, that cost gets passed on to the rest of the market. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Don't get glib just because you have no defense against the truth.

That goes for everything else as well. Every time someone shoplifts at the local A&P the rest of us pay for it. Every time someone in your town gets in an accident and/or sues the rest of us pay for it. Every time someone files bankruptcy on credit card debt, the rest of us pay for it.
Why should medical care be different from anything else? We aren't demanding that people be mandated to shop at supermarkets to offset the losses from shoplifting. It is a loser argument.

You're missing the point--the question is can the Federal Government be the one who mandates that everyone pay for medical insurance--or get penalized. States can do it--as we see Romneycare was never challenged in court--but the Federal Government is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

It's clear that all the justices are very concerned about the mandate--and more than likely will strike Obamacare down. Their discussion today revolved around if they strike down the mandate--what parts of Obamacare could be saved. Here is the final day of discussion on this issue.

Justices weigh health law's fate if no insurance mandate

Oh. we're beyond that.
SUre, the mandate is unconstitutional. So much for all those chuckleheads when the attorneys general filed suit claiming it would go nowhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

Misplaced blame is the first sign of blind partisanship.

Thank the Mary Browns of the country. Hypocrits who claim they don't need health insurance, then ask fit debt forgiveness when they can't take care of their responsibilities.

In other words, you bums want FREE HEALTH CARE!

Damn, I miss REAL Conservatives, who truly believed in personal responsibility. These NeoCons

Pointing out reality is not partisan. I have health insurance which I pay for in part and my employer the other. Enlarging Medicaid would seem to be your free health care. Who decided to do that again?

I agree 110%, my freind. Pointing out reality is NOT partisan.

But who's reality? Mine and yours? We who pay our premiums and get coverage. You know, responsible people.

Or people like Mary Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Supreme Court case, who is picking our pocket for her free health care while whining that if this law stands she and her husband will have to actually be adults and be responsible for themselves.

Because from where I'm sitting, the reality of the situation is a bunch of people whining that they won't get free stuff anymore are attacking the Presidents health care plan.

How is she picking your pocket? That's really a stretch. Send me the bill for how much she owes you and I'll pay it.

 

[saveliberty]

Misplaced blame is the first sign of blind partisanship.

Thank the Mary Browns of the country. Hypocrits who claim they don't need health insurance, then ask fit debt forgiveness when they can't take care of their responsibilities.

In other words, you bums want FREE HEALTH CARE!

Damn, I miss REAL Conservatives, who truly believed in personal responsibility. These NeoCons

Pointing out reality is not partisan. I have health insurance which I pay for in part and my employer the other. Enlarging Medicaid would seem to be your free health care. Who decided to do that again?

I agree 110%, my freind. Pointing out reality is NOT partisan.

But who's reality? Mine and yours? We who pay our premiums and get coverage. You know, responsible people.

Or people like Mary Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Supreme Court case, who is picking our pocket for her free health care while whining that if this law stands she and her husband will have to actually be adults and be responsible for themselves.

Because from where I'm sitting, the reality of the situation is a bunch of people whining that they won't get free stuff anymore are attacking the Presidents health care plan.

If I look at the last eight years of health insurance premiums, I'd have been way ahead if I jsut paid for trips to the emergency room out of pocket. My wife on the other hand would have bankrupted us. Its all risk management. I'm not going to tell someone how to manage theirs, as long as they don't tell me how to manage mine.

 

[Vidi]

Pointing out reality is not partisan. I have health insurance which I pay for in part and my employer the other. Enlarging Medicaid would seem to be your free health care. Who decided to do that again?

I agree 110%, my freind. Pointing out reality is NOT partisan.

But who's reality? Mine and yours? We who pay our premiums and get coverage. You know, responsible people.

Or people like Mary Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Supreme Court case, who is picking our pocket for her free health care while whining that if this law stands she and her husband will have to actually be adults and be responsible for themselves.

Because from where I'm sitting, the reality of the situation is a bunch of people whining that they won't get free stuff anymore are attacking the Presidents health care plan.

If I look at the last eight years of health insurance premiums, I'd have been way ahead if I jsut paid for trips to the emergency room out of pocket. My wife on the other hand would have bankrupted us. Its all risk management. I'm not going to tell someone how to manage theirs, as long as they don't tell me how to manage mine.

I would agree with that if their decisions didn't effect my costs.

 

[dblack]

I would agree with that if their decisions didn't effect my costs.

This notion that, because someone else's decisions affects market prices, we have some justification for dictating their behavior strikes me as utterly authoritarian. Are our you claiming you have a 'right' to low cost insurance or something?

Would you apply the same logic to other markets? If other people's choices regarding food consumption caused the food you prefer to be more expensive - would you cite that as justification to dictate their eating habits?

 

[Vidi]

I would agree with that if their decisions didn't effect my costs.

This notion that, because someone else's decisions affects market prices, we have some justification for dictating their behavior strikes me as utterly authoritarian. Are our you claiming you have a 'right' to low cost insurance or something?

Would you apply the same logic to other markets? If other people's choices regarding food consumption caused the food you prefer to be more expensive - would you cite that as justification to dictate their eating habits?

I am not claiming I have a right to low cost anything. I do however have the right to not be pillaged.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that I do not purchase health insurance, but get sick or injured, then incur bills that I cannot pay. Who pays then?

The cost of my treatment would then be passed along to everyone else.

By what right can I take the fruit of your labor for my benefit?




As far as the food analogy, you're making the broccoli argument. Their choice to not purchase Brocoli does not cause the price to increase, therefore it's a false equivilency.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree 110%, my freind. Pointing out reality is NOT partisan.

But who's reality? Mine and yours? We who pay our premiums and get coverage. You know, responsible people.

Or people like Mary Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Supreme Court case, who is picking our pocket for her free health care while whining that if this law stands she and her husband will have to actually be adults and be responsible for themselves.

Because from where I'm sitting, the reality of the situation is a bunch of people whining that they won't get free stuff anymore are attacking the Presidents health care plan.

If I look at the last eight years of health insurance premiums, I'd have been way ahead if I jsut paid for trips to the emergency room out of pocket. My wife on the other hand would have bankrupted us. Its all risk management. I'm not going to tell someone how to manage theirs, as long as they don't tell me how to manage mine.

I would agree with that if their decisions didn't effect my costs.

Everyone's decisions affect your costs. That doesn't entitle you to dictate terms.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would agree with that if their decisions didn't effect my costs.

This notion that, because someone else's decisions affects market prices, we have some justification for dictating their behavior strikes me as utterly authoritarian. Are our you claiming you have a 'right' to low cost insurance or something?

Would you apply the same logic to other markets? If other people's choices regarding food consumption caused the food you prefer to be more expensive - would you cite that as justification to dictate their eating habits?

I am not claiming I have a right to low cost anything. I do however have the right to not be pillaged.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that I do not purchase health insurance, but get sick or injured, then incur bills that I cannot pay. Who pays then?

The cost of my treatment would then be passed along to everyone else.

By what right can I take the fruit of your labor for my benefit?




As far as the food analogy, you're making the broccoli argument. Their choice to not purchase Brocoli does not cause the price to increase, therefore it's a false equivilency.

That is the same for every other good or service. Other people's behavior influences the price you pay. Why does that entitle you to anything?

 

[saveliberty]

I guess, if we had a free market healthcare environment, insurers could rate people who had poor health, used drugs, didn't exercise, ate wrong or smoked. Then you would be paying the same as others who had the same health and health practices.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Vidi objects to subsidizing other people's health costs then he must be opposed to Obamacare, which does exactly that. Except unlike normal insurance, Obamacare is mandatory.

 

[Vidi]

If I look at the last eight years of health insurance premiums, I'd have been way ahead if I jsut paid for trips to the emergency room out of pocket. My wife on the other hand would have bankrupted us. Its all risk management. I'm not going to tell someone how to manage theirs, as long as they don't tell me how to manage mine.

I would agree with that if their decisions didn't effect my costs.

Everyone's decisions affect your costs. That doesn't entitle you to dictate terms.

There you go with the double standard again.

It's perfectly alright to stick your hands in my pockets but when I tell you no, I want entitlements.

In fact, I'm calling out self defense on the whole issue.

Get your big government hands out of my pocket.

 

[Vidi]

This notion that, because someone else's decisions affects market prices, we have some justification for dictating their behavior strikes me as utterly authoritarian. Are our you claiming you have a 'right' to low cost insurance or something?

Would you apply the same logic to other markets? If other people's choices regarding food consumption caused the food you prefer to be more expensive - would you cite that as justification to dictate their eating habits?

I am not claiming I have a right to low cost anything. I do however have the right to not be pillaged.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that I do not purchase health insurance, but get sick or injured, then incur bills that I cannot pay. Who pays then?

The cost of my treatment would then be passed along to everyone else.

By what right can I take the fruit of your labor for my benefit?




As far as the food analogy, you're making the broccoli argument. Their choice to not purchase Brocoli does not cause the price to increase, therefore it's a false equivilency.

That is the same for every other good or service. Other people's behavior influences the price you pay. Why does that entitle you to anything?

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

 

[Liability]

I am not claiming I have a right to low cost anything. I do however have the right to not be pillaged.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that I do not purchase health insurance, but get sick or injured, then incur bills that I cannot pay. Who pays then?

The cost of my treatment would then be passed along to everyone else.

By what right can I take the fruit of your labor for my benefit?




As far as the food analogy, you're making the broccoli argument. Their choice to not purchase Brocoli does not cause the price to increase, therefore it's a false equivilency.

That is the same for every other good or service. Other people's behavior influences the price you pay. Why does that entitle you to anything?

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

So you disagree with the SCOTUS on their eminent domain thinking?

You disagree with our bankruptcy laws?

Or is it your "thinking" that those takings actually "involve" due process?

 

[dblack]

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

You seem to be assuming that health insurance is the only way to pay for health care and that's simply not true. Not only is not the only way, it's a proven failure as a means of financing health care. Over-use of insurance has inflated prices in the underlying health care market and is, frankly, a ponzi scheme that's run it's course. The best way out of the insurance dead-end is to do exactly the opposite of what is being mandated and use insurance as little as possible. The more we can all pay out of pocket, the better off we'll be. If that makes it too expensive for you to continue to indulge in a dumb solution, so much the better.

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[saveliberty]

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

You're confusing health care market with the health insurance market.

 

[jillian]

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

You seem to be assuming that health insurance is the only way to pay for health care and that's simply not true. Not only is not the only way, it's a proven failure as a means of financing health care. Over-use of insurance has inflated prices in the underlying health care market and is, frankly, a ponzi scheme that's run it's course. The best way out of the insurance dead-end is to do exactly the opposite of what is being mandated and use insurance as little as possible. The more we can all pay out of pocket, the better off we'll be. If that makes it too expensive for you to continue to indulge in a dumb solution, so much the better.

there are other more efficient ways to pay for health care. it's called single payor. but the "conservatives" wanted an individual mandate to prove "personal responsibility"... well, until they no longer wanted an individual mandate because a D wanted it.

if it gets struck down, they'll do a single payor next time.

because insurance companies and their lobbyists aren't going to frame the debate forever.

but when my son turns 22 and is still in grad school, i'll be sure to send a thank you note for the supremes when his insurance terminates.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Who knew Papa Obama was going to use this lawyer

 

[dblack]

there are other more efficient ways to pay for health care. it's called single payor. but the "conservatives" wanted an individual mandate to prove "personal responsibility"... well, until they no longer wanted an individual mandate because a D wanted it.

if it gets struck down, they'll do a single payor next time.

because insurance companies and their lobbyists aren't going to frame the debate forever.

but when my son turns 22 and is still in grad school, i'll be sure to send a thank you note for the supremes when his insurance terminates.

What I'm hoping is that they refrain from committing all of us to one monolithic solution. And when it comes to Congress that mostly means hoping they don't do anything at all. But a public option, as a default for people who can't afford health care otherwise, would be vastly better than PPACA.