Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: How will SCOTUS Rule?
SCOTUS punts till 2015 based on the 1867 law called the Anti-Injunction Act 210.00%
SCOTUS rules law is perfectly fine 630.00%
SCOTUS throws out "individual mandate" rest is fine 525.00%
SCOTUS throws out mandate and rules Medicaid expansion is fine 15.00%
SCOTUS rules Medicaid expansion is cohersion. Leaves mandate and rest in tact.   00%
SCOTUS throws out everything. 630.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-26-2012, 07:35 AM   #1
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
SCOTUS Ruling Predictions on Obamacare

On behalf of jeffkrol............
What's your best guess? Everyone here is at least as qualified as the "experts" that have been interviewed recently.


Last edited by Parallax; 03-26-2012 at 09:18 AM.
03-26-2012, 07:59 AM   #2
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
As my "favorite" governor said to the "fake Koch"
"Thanks a million"........
03-26-2012, 09:16 AM   #3
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
"Thanks a million"........
I expect it in small, unmarked bills; or a direct deposit to my off-shore account.
03-28-2012, 05:49 PM   #4
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
not looking good for the "majority"...........
But what did you expect using the Heritage Foundation plan..........

I believe they already said it would be fine if it was "Medicare for All".. or at least harder to fight........

Food for thought.........

QuoteQuote:
Noting that the insurance companies would have to go to Congress to get a fix, Justice Kennedy asked, “Is it within the proper exercise of this Court’s function to impose that kind of risk?”


Neither Justice Kennedy, or indeed any of the other conservative justices, asked about the costs that would be imposed on millions of Americans who would lose their health coverage, or their health benefits, if the whole law was struck down. A finding that the mandate is unconstitutional and not severable would require them to go back to Congress, but that “risk” seemed either invisible or unimportant to the justices.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/whitecoatnotes/2012/03/day-analysis-the-supreme...ocM/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/28/supreme-court-health-care-live?newsfeed=true

QuoteQuote:
Former George W Bush speechwriter turned conservative pariah David Frum warns Republicans that they'll need to come up with a healthcare message -- a message that makes sense, we should say -- if the healthcare reform law is upheld:

Make no mistake: If Republicans lose in the supreme court, they'll need an answer. "Repeal" may excite a Republican primary electorate that doesn't need to worry about health insurance because it's overwhelmingly over 65 and happily enjoying its government-mandated and taxpayer-subsidized single-payer Medicare system. But the general-election electorate doesn't have the benefit of government medicine. It relies on the collapsing system of employer-directed care. It's frightened, and it wants answers.



Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-28-2012 at 06:09 PM.
03-28-2012, 06:27 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 426
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Neither Justice Kennedy, or indeed any of the other conservative justices, asked about the costs that would be imposed on millions of Americans who would lose their health coverage, or their health benefits, if the whole law was struck down. A finding that the mandate is unconstitutional and not severable would require them to go back to Congress, but that “risk” seemed either invisible or unimportant to the justices.
It seems as if this should not be the concern of the Justices. Their job is to determine whether healthcare law is constitutional or not. If it is not found constitutional, it is the job of congress to fix it. I am all for the healthcare law, and hope it is found constitutional, but we can't start making the argument that things should be legal just because the benefit a lot of people, or is an inconvenience to congress. I am sure if this law is found unconstitutional, there are other mechanisms congress can use to impose a mandate (if they get off their butts and actually try to solve problems for a change).

What troubles me most is that it appears as if a majority of justices have already made their decision (based on the questions they are asking), and those decisions fall across party lines. The supreme court should not be political. They should be objective and uphold the best interpretation of the law.
03-28-2012, 06:39 PM   #6
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by kswier Quote
It seems as if this should not be the concern of the Justices. Their job is to determine whether healthcare law is constitutional or not. If it is not found constitutional, it is the job of congress to fix it. I am all for the healthcare law, and hope it is found constitutional, but we can't start making the argument that things should be legal just because the benefit a lot of people, or is an inconvenience to congress. I am sure if this law is found unconstitutional, there are other mechanisms congress can use to impose a mandate (if they get off their butts and actually try to solve problems for a change).

What troubles me most is that it appears as if a majority of justices have already made their decision (based on the questions they are asking), and those decisions fall across party lines. The supreme court should not be political. They should be objective and uphold the best interpretation of the law.
Agreed but I'm not sure enough of that is left in the US anymore..

side funny note:
QuoteQuote:
2. Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate (link)

Well this is not good.
In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to use an individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.
On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.
But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”
This will come back to hurt Romney. If not now, then for sure during his battle against President Obama.
Chad’s Morning Brief: In Defense of Rush Limbaugh & More
BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate | RedState
03-28-2012, 07:12 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 426
I hope this does come back to bite Romney. My favorite part of the Republican stance (sarcasm intended) is that they are quick to criticize the bill, but I have never heard them offer a comprehensive solution that would make healthcare accessible to both poor and wealthy Americans.

03-28-2012, 09:12 PM   #8
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by kswier Quote
I hope this does come back to bite Romney. My favorite part of the Republican stance (sarcasm intended) is that they are quick to criticize the bill, but I have never heard them offer a comprehensive solution that would make healthcare accessible to both poor and wealthy Americans.
The issues that cause healthcare to be so expensive in the US vs. other countries isn't the greediness of insurance companies and the ACA if it is allowed to stand won't bring us in line with the cost structures of other countries, it won't even come close. Just as doing nothing and letting your body fight off an illness is the appropriate medical treatment, doing nothing and letting the free market resolve a supply and demand imbalance can be an appropriate policy position and one which requires no action by congress if the ACA is struck down. If Romney is the nominee and the law is struck down, all he will need to do is promise that he will do nothing to revive the ACA.

If this is a viable option on the state level but not on the federal level, every blue state out there is more than welcome to pass their own version of a romneycare style statute at any time. I suspect that at the federal level, the only thing that would be legit solution would be some kind of single payer scheme be it "medicare for all" or an NHS style "VA for all" approach. Neither of those are appealing policy choices for republicans so that leaves option C, the market will resolve this eventually.
03-28-2012, 09:22 PM   #9
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
03-28-2012, 09:29 PM - 1 Like   #10
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
If this is a viable option on the state level but not on the federal level
Since you actually have "rich states" and "poor states" that wouldn't work..

Here Mike...I've got some broccoli to sell you

The Free Market: Four-Step Health Care Solution, A

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.
...........................
The Free Market: Four-Step Health Care Solution, A

So you think the Feringi "utopia" is the way to go.........#1 just made me shiver............
03-29-2012, 06:25 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
Excellent, Jeff!

Add to the subsidy elimination: end all tax preference to insurance premiums and medical costs, as these distort the market by making the consumer less price conscious.

Give the consumer the responsibility of managing costs by allowing the patient to select - and veto - any procedures or medications disadvantageously priced. This takes the control away from parties with conflicts of interest: doctors, hospitals, drug makers.

Further encourage personal responsibility by capping all malpractice awards. A consumer who takes caveat emptor to heart is more likely to do due diligence on the service providers and products.
03-29-2012, 06:28 AM   #12
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Further encourage personal responsibility by capping all malpractice awards. A consumer who takes caveat emptor to heart is more likely to do due diligence on the service providers and products.
Better yet, eliminate malpractice cases altogether. This would encourage the consumer to fully check out the doctors, nurses and hospital personnel before allowing himself to be taken there.
03-29-2012, 06:34 AM   #13
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Since you actually have "rich states" and "poor states" that wouldn't work..
Why should someone whose living in poverty at 200% of the federal poverty line in a high cost of living city within a rich state subsidize the health care of someone who is getting by more comfortably at 150% of the poverty line in a low cost of living poor state?

The states with the biggest percentage of the population uninsured and which account for the lions share of uninsured people nationally are Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, and New York all big rich states. If only California were to pass an individual mandate that would push 7.5MM of the 50MM uninsured people into the insurance pool. Texas would be another 6.25MM, Florida would be another 4.5 MM, NY would be another 3MM, and Illinois would cover another 2.5MM. So five states could erase close to half of the gap.
03-29-2012, 06:51 AM   #14
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
Why should someone whose living in poverty at 200% of the federal poverty line in a high cost of living city within a rich state subsidize the health care of someone who is getting by more comfortably at 150% of the poverty line in a low cost of living poor state?

The states with the biggest percentage of the population uninsured and which account for the lions share of uninsured people nationally are Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, and New York all big rich states. If only California were to pass an individual mandate that would push 7.5MM of the 50MM uninsured people into the insurance pool. Texas would be another 6.25MM, Florida would be another 4.5 MM, NY would be another 3MM, and Illinois would cover another 2.5MM. So five states could erase close to half of the gap.
You do understand I have to play the "sun goes around the earth" to make it understandable for the masses don't you??

States shouldn't have to "pay" anything to Medicaid ect.. They need to balance their checkbook like you do.. The Fed on the other hand.. never needs to......
Your "windmill" is a complete failure to understand (or accept) the Fed ground rules.. not my problem.
03-29-2012, 06:53 AM   #15
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Better yet, eliminate malpractice cases altogether. This would encourage the consumer to fully check out the doctors, nurses and hospital personnel before allowing himself to be taken there.
Hmm remind me to have a laptop when I have a stroke so I can research the best stroke care providers.............
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SCOTUS analysis on romney.. err ACA jeffkrol General Talk 20 03-26-2012 10:35 AM
UK - Photographers face copyright threat after shock ruling interested_observer Photographic Technique 23 01-27-2012 11:19 PM
ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court stevewig General Talk 168 01-18-2012 03:41 PM
Constitution 2, Obamacare 0 mikemike General Talk 23 08-13-2011 02:07 PM
Watering down Obamacare mikemike General Talk 86 03-08-2011 09:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top